HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 05-20-04 CuNer
36696-052004
ROANOKE CITY COUNCIt
REGUtAR SESSION
~4A Y 20, 2004
2.'00 P.
CITY COUNCIL CHA~4BER
AGENDA
1. Call to Order - Roll Call. (All Council Members were present.)
The Invocation was delivered by The Reverend George E. Stevenson,
Pastor, East Gate Church of the Nazarene.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was
led by Mayor Ralph K. Smith.
Welcome. Mayor Smith.
NOTICE:
Meetings of Roanoke City Council are televised live on RVTV Channel 3. Today's
meeting will be replayed on Channel 3 on Friday, May 21,2004, at 7:00 p.m.,
and Saturday, May 22, 2004, at 4:00 p.m. Council meetings are now being
offered with closed captioning for the hearing impaired.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
THE PUBLIC IS ADVISED THAT MEMBERS OF COUNCIL RECEIVE THE CITY
COUNCIL AGENDA AND RELATED COMMUNICATIONS, REPORTS, ORDINANCES
AND RESOLUTIONS, ETC., ON THE THURSDAY PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL MEETING
TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT TIME FOR REVIEW OF INFORMATION. CITIZENS WHO
ARE INTERESTED IN OBTAINING A COPY OF ANY ITEM LISTED ON THE AGENDA
MAY CONTACT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, ROOM 456, NOEL C. TAYLOR
MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 215 CHURCH AVENUE, S. W., OR CALL 853-254].
THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE PROVIDES THE MAJORITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ON THE INTERNET FOR VIEWING AND RESEARCH PURPOSES. TO
ACCESS AGENDA MATERIAL, GO TO THE CITY'S HOMEPAGE AT
WWW.ROANOKEGOV.COM, CLICK ON THE ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL ICON,
CLICK ON MEETINGS AND AGENDAS AND DOWNLOAD THE ADOBE ACROBAT
SOFTWARE TO ACCESS THE AGENDA.
ALL PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO REGISTER
WITH THE STAFF ASSISTANT WHO IS LOCATED AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE
COUNCIL CHAMBER. ON THE SAME AGENDA ITEM, ONE TO FOUR SPEAKERS
WILL BE ALLOTTED FIVE MINUTES EACH, HOWEVER, IF THERE ARE MORE THAN
FOUR SPEAKERS, EACH SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOTTED THREE MINUTES.
ANY PERSON WHO IS INTERESTED IN SERVING ON A CITY COUNCIL APPOINTED
AUTHORITY, BOARD, COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE IS REQUESTED TO
CONTACT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT 853-2541, OR ACCESS THE CITY'S
HOMEPAGE AT WWW.ROANOKEGOV.COM, TO OBTAIN AN APPLICATION.
2. PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
Proclamation declaring May 16 - 22, 2004 as Business Appreciation Week.
File #3
Proclamation declaring May 16 - 22, 2004 as Emergency Medical Services Week.
File #3-354
'Proclamation declaring May 16 - 22, 2004 as National Public Works Week.
File #3-1 83
2
Proclamation declaring May 20, 2004 as Sarah-Elizabeth Virginia Hurt Day.
File #3-304
CONSENT AGENDA
C-1
C-2
C-3
Approved (7-0)
ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED TO BE
ROUTINE BY THE MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE
MOTIQN. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THE ITEMS. IF
DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THE ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT
AGENDA AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY.
Minutes of a special meeting of Council held on Tuesday, November 25,
2003; and the regular meeting of Council held on Monday, April 5, 2004.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Dispense with the reading of the
minutes and approve as recorded.
A communication from Council Member Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Chair, City
Council's Personnel Committee, requesting that Council convene in a Closed
Meeting to discuss the performance of three Council-Appointed Officers,
pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Concur in the request.
Approved (7-0)
File #1 32
A communication from the City Manager requesting that Council schedule
a public hearing for Monday, June 21,2004, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter
as the matter may be heard, with regard to expansion of the Downtown Service
District.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approved (7-0)
File #79-380
Concur in the request.
3
C-4
C-5
C-6
C-7
A request of G. Michael Pace, Jr., Attorney, representing SunCom, that
Council schedule a public hearing for Monday, June 7, 2004, at 2:00 p.m., or as
soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, with regard to the construction and
operation of a 11 O-foot flagpole communication facility and related equipment
on a portion of City-owned property located at the Roanoke Civic Center.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approved (7-0)
File #1 92-383
Concur in the request.
A communication from Carl T. Tinstey, Sr., Secretary, Roanoke City
Electoral Board, transmitting an Abstract of Votes cast in the General Election
held in the City of Roanoke on May 4, 2004.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approved (7-0)
File #40-1 32
Receive and file.
A communication from the City Manager requesting that Council convene
in aCIosed Meeting to discuss acquisition of real property for a public purpose,
where discussion in open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining.
position or negotiating strategy of the City, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(3),
Code of Virginia (! 950), as amended.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approved (7-0)
File #2-1 32
Concur in the request.
Qualification of the following persons:
M. Rupert Cutler as a City representative to the Board of Directors,
Western Virginia Water Authority, for a term commencing March 2,
2004 and ending March 1,2006; and
Randy L. Leftwich as a member of the Human Services Committee
for a term ending June 30, 2004.
File #15-1: 0-207-468
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
4
C-8
A communication from the City Manager requesting that Council convene
in a Closed Meeting to discuss the award of a public contract involving the
expenditure of public funds, and discussion of the terms or scope of such
contract, where discussion in. open meeting would adversely affect the
bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body, of the City,
pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(3), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approved (7-0)
File #1 32
Concur in the request.
c-9
A communication from the City Attorney requesting that Council convene
in a Closed Meeting for consultation with legal counsel on a specific legal matter
requiring the provision of legal advise by such counsel, pursuant to §2.2-
3711A.7, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approved (7-0)
File #1 32
Concur in the request.
REGULAR AGENDA
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE.
5. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: NONE.
6. REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
a. CITY MANAGER:
BRIEFINGS: NONE.
ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION:
Acceptance of Technology Trust funds from the State
Compensation Board, for reimbursement to the Circuit Court
Clerk's Office, in the amount of $29,708.00.
Adopted Budget Ordinance No.
(7-0)
File #60-103-108
36696-052004.
Amendment to the City Code to reflect an increase in the "distance
rate" for taxi-cab service in the City of Roanoke.
Adopted Ordinance No. 36697-052004. (7-0)
File #24-47
Appropriation of $110,000.00 from the Virginia Department of
Transportation for disbursement to the Western Virginia
Foundation for the Arts and Sciences, in connection with the
Roanoke Passenger Station Renovation Project.
Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 36698-052004.
(7-0)
File #60-537
Acceptance ofJ uve nile Accountability Block G rant I nce ntive Prog ram
funds from the Department of Criminal Justice Services, in
connection with the TAP-Project Recovery program.
Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 36699-052004
and Resolution No. 36700-052004. (7-0)
File #60-226-236-305
6
7. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
Request of the Roanoke City School Board for appropriation of funds from
the 2003-04 Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Fund and
the Alternative Education Program; and a report of the Director of Finance
recommending that Council concur in the request. Richard L. Kelley,
Assistant Superintendent of Operations, Spokesperson.
Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 36701-052004.
(7-0)
File #60-467
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
9. INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES
AND RESOLUTIONS. NONE.
10. MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
Inquiries and/or comments by the Mayor, Vice-Mayor and Members of
City Council.
Council Member Cutler called attention to an article in a recent
issue of Virginia Town andCityin regard to mutual aid pacts
which noted that the City of Roanoke, City of Salem, Town of
Vinton and Roanoke County have moved beyond maintaining a
mutual aid agreement and expanded regional cooperation by
establishing a regional radio system, standardizing equipment
for fire fighting components, adopting a valley-wide incident
management system and participating in the construction of
the Roanoke Valley Regional Fire Emergency Medical Services
Training Center. He stated that the article was a positive
reflection of the Roanoke Valley's efforts toward regional
cooperation.
File #132
Council Member Cutler advised that the Governor will appoint
a Commission on Rail Enhancement for the 2 :~st Century which
will address improving freight service along 1-81 and it is
hoped that a representative from the Greater Roanoke region
will be appointed to the Commission.
File #132-533
Council Member Bestpitch commented on the Roanoke Valley
Leadership Trip to Louisville, Kentucky on May :Z6-~8 and
advised that the value of the trip will be in determining
whether localities of the Roanoke Valley can build upon the
kinds of regional cooperation above referenced by Dr. Cutler
in order to combine with other jurisdictions to achieve greater
efficiencies in government; i.e.: cooperative agreements in
regard to fire/emergency medical services, library systems,
parks and recreation activities, etc.
File #~32
Council Member Bestpitch advised that he and the City
Manager represent the City of Roanoke on the Virginia First
Cities Coalition which consists of the City of Roanoke and 14
other cities throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia that are
experiencing the same challenges of older urban core cities.
He stated that a meeting was held on Wednesday, May 19, in
Petersburg, Virginia, and commended the City Manager for the
leadership she has provided to the organization, she has
represented the City well and is highly respected by City
Managers and elected representatives from the :~4 other cities
that are a part of the Coalition. He encouraged Council to
continue its support of the Virginia First Cities Coalition.
File #132-292
Vacancies on certain authorities, boards, commissions and committees
appointed by Council.
1 1. HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
CITY COUNCIL SETS THIS TIME AS A PRIORITY FOR CITIZENS TO BE HEARD,
MATTERS REQUIRING REFERRAL TO THE CITY MANAGER WILL BE REFERRED
IMMEDIATELY FOR RESPONSE, RECOMMENDATION OR REPORT TO COUNCIL.
Dr. E. Jeanette Manns, 1826 10th Street, N. W., spoke in regard to
an incident that occurred in a City school in which her grandson was
the victim of bullying by another student and the manner in which
School officials responded to the incident. She advised that racism
exists in Roanoke City Public Schools and in Roanoke City
employment.
File #66-132-467
Mr. Chris Craft, 1501 East Gate Avenue, N. E., expressed
appreciation for Council's approval of an increase in taxicab rates.
He expressed concern that for budgetary reasons, the
Commissioner of the Revenue no longer has an employee assigned
to issue City decals at the Division of Motor Vehicles.
File #47-66-106
12. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: NONE.
CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION. (6-0, Council Member Dowe
was absent.)
Adopted Ordinance No. 36702-052004 authorizing the City
Manager to execute an amendment to the License Agreement dated
May 18, 2001, between the City and Arena Ventures, LLC, extending
the date by which Arena Ventures must provide written notice to the
City that it is exercising its right to terminate such License
Agreement from May 31, 2004, until June 30, 2004, upon certain
terms and conditions. (6 - 0, Council Member Dowe was absent.)
File #192
THE COUNCIL MEETING WAS DECLARED IN RECESS UNTIL 7:00 P.M., IN THE
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER.
ROANOKE CITY COUNCIl
REGULAR SESSION
MA Y 20, 2004
7.'00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIl CHAMBER
AGENDA
Call to Order -- Roll Call. (All Council Members were present.)
The Invocation was delivered by Council Member William D. Bestpitch.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led by
Mayor Smith.
Welcome, Mayor Smith.
NOTICE:
The Council meeting will be televised live by RVTVChannel 3 to be replayed on
Friday, May 21,2004, at 7:00 p.m., and Saturday, May 22, 2004, at 4:00 p.m.
Council meetings are now being offered with closed captioning for the hearing
impaired.
PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: NONE.
l0
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Request of Fudds of S.W.VA., Inc., that property located at 3659
Orange Avenue, N. E., Official Tax No. 7110122, be rezoned from
RS-3, Residential Single Family District, to C-2 General Commercial
District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner.
Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Attorney.
The request for rezoning was referred to City Planning
staff for review of additional proffers and report to
Council no later than Monday, June 21, 2004.
File #51
Request of the Unified Human Services Transportation System, Inc.
(RADAR), for exemption from local real estate taxation of real
property located between Breckinridge Avenue and Baker Avenue,
N.W. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., Attorney.
Adopted Ordinance No. 36703-052004. (7-0)
File #79
Amendment of Vision 2001-2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan,
to include the Wireless Telecommunications Policy. R. Brian
Townsend, Agent, City Planning Commission.
Adopted Ordinance No. 36704-052004. (7-0)
File #166-200-383-468
B. OTHER BUSINESS:
1 (a).
Petition for appeal of a decision of the Architectural Review Board,
filed by Edward A. Natt, Attorney, representing Rhodney Tozier and
Travis Tozier, d/b/a Community Properties, LLC, with regard to
property located at 365 Washington Avenue, S. W.
Based upon the evidence (testimony and documents)
presented to Council on Thursday, May 20, 2004,
Council voted to affirm the decision of the City of
Roanoke Architectural Review Board on April 1 3, 2004,
that no Certificate of Appropriateness be issued for roof
replacement at 365 Washington Avenue, S. W., as set
forth in the Petition for Appeal, on the grounds that the
proposed installation would not be compatible with the
architectural defining features of the building. (6- 1,
Mayor Smith voted no)
File #249
(b).
Recommendation of the Architectural Review Board that Council
affirm its decision to deny issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness, in connection with the above-referenced
property. Robert N. Richert, Chair, Architectural Review Board; and
R. Brian Townsend, Director, Planning, Building and Development,
Spokespersons.
File #249
2(a).
Petition for appeal of a decision of the Architectural Review Board,
filed by Steven S. Dugger, with regard to property located at 717
Highland Avenue, S. W.
Based upon the evidence (testimony and documents)
presented to Council on Thursday, May 20, 2004,
Council voted to affirm the decision of the City of
Roanoke Architectural Review Board on April 13, 2004,
and that no Certificate of Appropriateness be issued for
the replacement of windows at 717 Highland Avenue,
S.W., as set forth in the Petition for Appeal, on the
grounds that the proposed installation would not be
compatible with the architectural defining features of the
building.
File #249
(b).
Recommendation of the Architectural Review Board that Council
affirm its decision to deny issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness, in connection with the above-referenced
property. Robert N. Richert, Chair, Architectural Review Board; and
R. Brian Townsend, Director, Planning, Building and Development,
Spokespersons.
12
Cm
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
CITY COUNCIL SETS THIS TIME AS A PRIORITY FOR CITIZENS TO BE HEARD.
MATTERS REQUIRING REFERRAL TO THE CITY MANAGER WILL BE REFERRED
IMMEDIA]:ELY FOR RESPONSE, RECOMMENDATION OR REPORT TO COUNCIL.
Mr. Chris Craft, 1501 East Gate Avenue, N. E., expressed
appreciation to Mayor Smith and Council Members Bestpitch and
Wyatt for their service on Council. He commended the City on plans
to relocate the entrance to the Roanoke Regional Airport and the
installation of a traffic light.
File #9-20
Mr. Robert Gravely, 729 Loudon Avenue, N. W., expressed concern
with regard to overall conditions in the City of Roanoke, the need to
talk with citizens to learn more about issues of concern, appropriate
application of the law, the City's inadequate pay scale and pay for
performance which does not bring the salary of the average City
employee to an acceptable level.
File #66-184
13
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 1st day of Mmrch, 2004.
No. 36639-030104.
A RESOLUTION rescheduling the regular meeting of City Council scheduled to be
held on Monday, May 17, 2004, to Thursday, May 20, 2004, at 2:00 p.m., and 7:00 p.m., and
amending Resolution No. 36414-070703, which established the meeting schedule for the
Fiscal Year commencing July I, 2003, and terminating June 30, 2004.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The regular meeting of City Council scheduled to be held at 2:00 p.m. on
Monday, May 17, 2004, in City Council Chambers at 215 Church Avenue, S. W., is hereby
rescheduled to commence at 2:00 p.m., on Thursday, May 20, 2004, to be recessed upon the
completion of all business except the conduct of public hearings, and such meeting to be
reconvened at 7:00 p.m. on the same day for the conduct of public hearings in City Council
Chambers.
2. Resolution No. 36414-070703, adopted July, 2003, is hereby amended to the
extent it is inconsistent with this resolution.
3. The City Clerk is directed to cause a copy of this resolution to be posted
adjacent to the doors of the Council Chambers and inserted in a newspaper having general
cimulation in the City at least seven days prior to May 20, 2004.
ATTEST: ~~
City Clerk.
Notice to Publisher:
Publish in the Roanoke Times once on Tuesday, May 11, 2004.
Send bill and affidavit to:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
215 Church Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
(540) 853-2541
The Roanoke Times
Roanoke, Virginia
Affidavit of Publication
The Roanoke Times
.................................................. + ...........................
ROANOKE CITY CLERK'S
215 CHURCH AVE. RM 456
ATT: MARY PARKER, CL
ROANOKE VA 24011
REFERENCE: 80023382
02362790
State of Virginia
City of Roanoke
Resolution
I, (the undersigned) an authorized representative
of the Times-World Corporation, which corporation
is publisher of the Roanoke Times, a daily
newspaper published in Roanoke, in the State of
Virginia, do certify that the annexed notice was
published in said newspapers on the following
dates:
City/County of Roanoke, Commonwealth/State of
Vir~nia. Sworn and subscribed before me this
__ ~_~ day of May 2004. Witness my hand and
~L----~-- ~ Notary, Public
My commission expi~r~--i~__~__~ ..... .
PUBLISHED ON: 05/11
147.01
05/14/04
TOTAL COST:
FILED ON:
i# TllE coglCt. OF TIE CIW
:.au~ ~ 3o, aoo4.
Authorized
S ignature:_/~~_~~,
Billing Services
Representative
Office of the Mayor
CITY OF ROANOKE
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
the City of Roanoke is pleased to have a thriving base of business
and industry to support the local economy; and
businesses provide essential employment opportunities for the
citizens of the Roanoke Valley; and
businesses provide local revenues from which the entire local
citizenry benefit; and
businesses also make significant contributions in the community to
promote educational opportunities for children and a variety of
activities which improve the quality of life for citizens of the area;
and
WHEREAS, City of Roanoke businesses are recognized, appreciated and
exemplify this year's theme, "Together We Make a Difference".
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ralph K Smith, Mayor of the City of Roanoke, Virginia,
do hereby proclaim the week of May 16 - 22, 2004, throughout this great All-
America City, as
BUSINESS APPRECIATION WEEK.
Given under our hands and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this sixth day of May
in the year two thousand and four.
ATTEST:
Mary F Parker
City Clerk
Ralph K Smith
Mayor
OffiCe of the Mayor
CITY OF ROANOKE
WHEREAS, Emergency Medical Services is a vital public service; and
WHEREAS, members of emergency medical services teams are ready to
provide lifesaving care to those in need, 24 hours a day, seven
days a week; and
WHEREAS, access to quality emergenCy care dramatically improves the
survival and recovery rate of those who experience sudden illness
or injury; and
WHEREAS, the emergency medical services system consists of emergency
physicians, emergency nurses, emergenCy medical technicians,
paramedics, firefighters, educators, administrators and others;
and
WHEREAS, emergencymedicalserviceteamsengageinthousands°fhours°f
specialized training and continuing education to enhance
lifesaving skills; and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate to recognize the value and the accomplishments of
emergency medical services providers by designating Emergency
Medical Services Week; and
WHEREAS, Roanoke Fire-EMS is joined by other concerned citizenS of
Roanoke, as well as other emergency service providers and safety
advocates, businesses, schools, service clubs and organizations, in
their safety efforts.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ralph ~ Smith, Mayor of the City of Roanoke, I/irginia,
in recognition of the outstanding services performed by these individuals, do
hereby proclaim the week of May 16 - 22, 2004, throughout this great All-
America City, as
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK.
Given under our hands and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this fourteenth day of
May in the year two thousand and four.
Mary F. Parker
City Clerk
Ralph K. Smith
Mayor
Office of the Mayor
CITY OF ROANOKE
ror ama iou
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREA&
public works services provided by employees of the City of
Roanoke to the community play an integral role in the everyday
lives of our citizens; and
the support of an informed citizenry is vital to the efficient
operation of the public works functions performed by the
Department of Public Works, Department of Utilities and
Department of General Services, Divisions of Facilities
Management and Fleet Management; and
these functions include solid waste management, engineering,
transportation, water/wastewater, utility line services, facilities
management and fleet management; and
the health, safety, comfort and quality of life for all citizens of this
community greatly depends on public works functions; and
the dedication of the personnel who perform public works
functions, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, is
recognized and appreciated; and
public works equipment will be displayed on Friday, May 21,
2004, from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., in the City Market area.
NOW, THEREFORE, L Ralph K. Smith, Mayor of the City of Roanoke, Virginia,
commend the dedicated efforts of staff of the Public Works Department, and do
herebyproclaim May 16 - 22, 2004, throughout this great All-America City, as
NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK.
Given under our hands and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this nineteenth day of
May in the year two thousand and four.
ATTEST:
Mary ~ Parker
City Clerk
Ralph K. Smith
Mayor
Office of the Mayor
CITY OF ROANOKE
WHEREAS, America's Junior Miss Program originated in 1957 as a way to
recognize high school senior girls for achievements in the areas of scholastics,
talent, fitness and poise; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Junior Miss Program began in1960; this year twenty-
three contestants participated in the state program held on February 21 - 29,
2004, at Salem High School; this national outreach program is geared toward
youth who strive to "Be Your Best Self' by eating the right foods, staying fit,
getting a good education, living by moral principals, serving the community and
setting goals and working to achieve those goals; and
t, VHEREAS, Sarah-Elizabeth Virginia Hurt is the 2004 Virginia's Junior Miss;
she was born on June 30, 1986, and is a native of the Roanoke Valley; she is the
daughter of Leroy and Carol Hurt and she has one brother, .4dam; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Hurt is a senior at Roanoke Catholic School; she plans to
attend the honors program at Virginia Polytechnic and State University in the fall
and pursue a career in trauma surgery, where she hopes to use her talents in a
third-worM country; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Hurt is a member of numeroas community, school and church
organizations, including having served as an outstanding original member of the
City of Roanoke Youth Commission, Secretary of the Student Government
Association Executive Council, Vice President of the National Honor Society;
she has provided musical support to Barnhardt Baptist Church and Roanoke
Catholic School; and she is an accomplished pianist and dancer; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Hurt will compete for scholarship funds with state winners
from each of the 49 other states in Mobile, Alabama, on June 26, 2004.
NOW, THEREFORE, 1, Ralph K. Smith, Mayor of the City of Roanoke, Virginia,
in recognition of her personal accomplishments and dedication to community
service, do hereby proclaim Thursday, May 20, 2004, throughout this great All-
America City, as
SARAH-ELIZABETH VIRGINIA HURT DA Y.
Given under our hands and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this fourteenth day of
May in the year two thousand and four.
ArrE
Mary ~ Parker
City Clerk
Ralph K. Smith
Mayor
SPECIAL SESSION .... ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
November 25, 2003
3:30 p.m.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in special session on Tuesday,
November 25, 2003, at 3:30 p.m., in the City Council's Conference Room, fourth floor,
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke,
Virginia, with Mayor Ralph K. Smith presiding, pursuant to Section 10, Meetings of
Council Generally, Charter of the City of Roanoke, with Mayor Ralph K. Smith
presiding.
PRESENT: Council Members William D. Bestpitch, M. Rupert Cutler, Alfred T.
Dowe, Jr. (arrived late), Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr. (arrived late), C. Nelson Harris,
Linda F. Wyatt, and Mayor Ralph K. Smith ........................................................... 7.
ABSENT: None .......................................
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk.
The special meeting was called pursuant to the following communication from
Vice-Mayor Harris:
"November 24, 2003
The Honorable Mayor and
Members of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of Council:
Pursuant to Section 10, Meetings of Council Generally, Chapter 10 of the City
Charter, I am calling a special meeting of Council for Tuesday, November 25, 2003, at
3:30 p.m., in the Council's Conference Room, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal
Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke. The purpose of the meeting
will be to discuss appointment of a Constitutional Officer.
Sincerely,
SiC. Nelson Harris
C. Nelson Harris
Vice-Mayor
pc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk"
Mr. Cutler moved that Council convene in a Closed Session to discuss a
personnel matter, being the appointment of a Constitutional Officer, pursuant to
Section 2.2-3711(a)(1), Code of Virginia (1950) as amended. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Bestpitch and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Harris, Wyatt and Mayor Smith----5.
NAYS: None ......................................
(Council Members Dowe and Fitzpatrick were not present when the vote was
recorded.)
At 3:35 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess for one closed session.
(Council Members Dowe and Fitzpatrick entered the meeting during the Closed
Session.)
At 7:35 p.m., the meeting reconvened in the Council's Conference Room, with
all Members of the Council in attendance, except Mayor Smith, and Vice-Mayor
Harris presiding.
COUNCIL: With respect to the Closed Meeting just concluded, Mr. Bestpitch
moved that each Member of City Council certify to the best of his or her knowledge
that: (1) only public business matters lawfully exempt from open meeting
requirements under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and (2) only such
public business matters as were identified in any motion by which any Closed
Meeting was convened were heard, discussed or considered by City Council. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Wyatt, and Vice-
Mayor Harris ................................................................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ........................................................................................... -0.
(Mayor Smith was absent.)
CKBSl\inse~ts\l12503ins.wpd. 2
COUNCIL-CITY TREASURER: Ms. Wyatt moved that the City Attorney be
instructed to prepare the proper measure appointing Evelyn W. Powers as City
Treasurer, effective January 1,2004. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bestpitch and
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Wyatt and Vice-
Mayor Harris ................................................................................................ -6.
NAYS: None ...................................................................................... -0.
(Mayor Smith was absent.)
There being no further business, the Vice-Mayor declared the special meeting
adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
Mary F. Parker
City Clerk
Ralph K. Smith
Mayor
CKBS l\inserts\l 12503ins.wpd. 3
REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION
ROANOKECITYCOUNCIL
April 5, 2004
9:00 a.m.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular session on Monday,
April 5, 2004, at 9:00 a.m., the regular meeting hour, in the Emergency
Operations Center Conference Room, Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal
Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor Ralph
K. Smith presiding, pursuant to Chapter 2, Administration, Article II, City Council,
Section 2-15, Rules of Procedure, Rule 1, Regular Meetings, Code of the City of
Roanoke (1979), as amended; and pursuant to Resolution No. 36193-010603
adopted on January 6, 2003, which changed the time of commencement of the
regular meeting of Council to be held on the first Monday in each month from
:[2:15 p.m. to 9:00 a.m.
PRESENT: Council Members C. Nelson Harris (arrived at 9:25 a.m.), Linda F.
Wyatt (arrived at 9:15 a.m.), William D. Bestpitch, M. Rupert Cutler, Alfred T.
Dowe, Jr., Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., and Mayor Ralph K. Smith ............ 7.
ABSENT: None .............................................. O.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L: Burcham, City Manager; Timothy R. Spencer,
Assistant City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker,
City Clerk.
CITY COUNCIL: A communication from Mayor Ralph K. Smith requesting
that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss vacancies on certain
authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council,
pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was
before the body.
Mr. Bestpitch moved that Council concur in the request of the Mayor to
convene in a Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, and Mayor
Smith ........................................................... S.
NAYS: None ................................................. 0.
(Council Members Harris and Wyatt had not arrived when the vote was recorded.)
ITEMS LISTED ON THE 2:00 P.M. COUNCIL DOCKET REQUIRING
DISCUSSION/CLARIFICATION; AND ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE 2:00 P.M.
DOCKET:
CELEBRATIONS/VALLEY VIEW MALL: With regard to a report of the City
Attorney on the 2:00 p.m., Council docket requesting authorization for waiver of
the City's sovereign immunity in connection with use of Valley View Mall for
Citizens Appreciation Day on Saturday, April 17, 2004, Council Member Cutler
inquired if the same action was requested in 2003; whereupon, the Assistant City
Attorney advised that the matter was not brought to the Council for action in
2003, however, waiver of sovereign immunity is considered to be standard
procedure for most shopping centers.
COMMONWEALTH BUILDING-LIBRARIES: With regard to a communication
from the City Manager on the 2:00 p.m., Council docket requesting approval of
Amendment No. 2 to the asbestos and lead abatement services contract between
the City and Waco, Inc., to increase the contract amount by an additional
$75,000.00, Dr. Cutler questioned the status of the project and Mayor Smith
questioned what the additional costs will entail.
The City Manager advised that expanding the contract to include additional
investigation in the Commonwealth Building is the prime reason for the increase
in costs and called attention to a previous discussion with Council regarding the
need for an investigation of lead abatement in not only the Bankruptcy Court
area, but throughout the entire building.
Council Member Bestpitch questioned the process in regard to making a
long term commitment for any usage of the Commonwealth Building, as opposed
to the possibility of converting the building to accommodate the downtown
public library.
The City Manager advised that no long term leases will impact the City's
ability to use the building for library purposes; Council may direct City staff to
ensure that any future leases are executed for a short period of time, or on a
year to year basis, in order to keep all options open; staff has advised the library
consultant to evaluate the Commonwealth Buildinc~ for suitability as a potential
library location; and nothing done to this point w~uld negate a different use of
the building in the future. She stated that no cost estimate has been submitted
to Council for lead and asbestos abatement which will be known upon
completion of the study; Amendment No. 2 to the contract with Waco, Inc., will
authorize sufficient funding to enable completion of the analysis; and the City
will soon be under contract for renovation work for the Bankruptcy Court
expansion.
Mr. Bestpitch made the observation that lead and asbestos abatement
needs to be done in any event, the library evaluation is in progress with an
option to utilize the Commonwealth Building, and the City is making a major
investment to renovate the building for the Bankruptcy Court which would seem
to argue against using the building for library purposes in the future. He added
that now is the time to think about the feasibility of spending a significant
amount of money on a renovation that may be in place for only a short period of
time, as opposed to not waiting until a situation occurs where options that the
Council may want to consider have been closed.
Dr. Cutler stressed the importance of keeping all options open for use of
the Commonwealth Building for library purposes.
TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL:
NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION: Dr. Cutler inquired as to how the City
could support the Heartland Corridor project of Norfolk Southern; whereupon,
the City Manager advised that letters were forwarded by the City Manager and
the Mayor in support of the project and Council will be advised if other actions
are necessary.
Dr. Cutler questioned if the City administration knows what will be needed
in terms of the intermodal facility; whereupon, Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that if it is
to be an up to date, modern facility, there is likely no place in the City of
Roanoke where it could be located; the facility most likely would need to be
located somewhere along the main line where a train could be pulled in to off
load and on load containers without changing the train; and the railroad has
looked throughout the Roanoke Valley for quite some time, without success, for
a location within the urban core of the City.
There was further discussion in regard to the east end shop property and
its potential future use should the railroad decide to de-access some of the land;
whereupon, the Mayor stated that the City should be ready to seize any
opportunity for potential use of the property.
Council Member Fitzpatrick advised that the tracks that run parallel to
Shenandoah Avenue are currently active yard tracks and although the railroad
has stopped using some parts of the interior of the yard, it is still a major hub
and there is no indication that the railroad wants to change its operation.
Vice-Mayor Harris entered the meeting.
HOUSING/AUTHORITY: Council Member Cutler inquired if the City Manager
wished to make comments regarding sites for the Housing Design Competition;
whereupon, the City Manager advised that a list of City properties, as well as
private property will be forwarded to Council; City properties and Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority properties were identified; several private
developers were contacted who had expressed a willingness for the City to
promote their property on the website; the City would prefer that the sites
represent a broad spectrum of neighborhoods, although there is some interest in
concentrating in the immediate downtown area and adjacent areas; and
opportunities will continue to be explored prior to the deadline for designation
of specific sites. She further advised that there is an interest in having sample
sites available on the City's website so that as the description of the competition
is rolled out there will be an opportunity to reflect on the kinds of neighborhoods
where housing design will occur; as competition proceeds and is unveiled there
will be a need to be site specific; and other opportunities such as those
properties that are identified for auction for delinquent taxes will be considered.
She stated that no specific request for funding has been submitted to the City to
this point; a number of other activities will be associated with the project which
include housing arrangements for architectural students who win the design
competition and visit the City next summer in connection with the actual building
of the structure(s); and the selection jury will convene in the City of Roanoke,
although full membership has not been identified at this time.
Later during the meeting, the City Manager distributed copies of City
properties which are suggested to be included on thewebsite. She stated that
before such properties are made available for housing design construction,
Council will be requested to take specific action following a public hearing.
ROANOKE ARTS COMMISSION/ART ACQUISITION: Dr. Cutler called attention
to the issue of the Unity Sculpture and the proposed location in which he noted
that the Roanoke Arts Commission has selected one site and the artist prefers
another site; whereupon, he inquired if there is a solution to the situation.
The City Manager advised that she suggested to the Chair of the Roanoke
Arts Commission that he formally bring the site recommendation of the Arts
Commission to Council; a site subcommittee of the Roanoke Arts Commission is
reviewing a possible alternative site in Elmwood Park; the Roanoke Arts
Commission will suggest that the site be held for a certain period of time while
fundraising for the Unity Sculpture takes place, however, it would appear that any
person making a contribution would want to know the location of the Unity
Sculpture prior to making a donation; and the location of the sculpture is a
decision that only Council can make. Without knowing the specific site location
in Elmwood Park, she expressed concern in regard to the City's ability in the
future to make a decision regarding the relocation of the main library.
Council Member Fitzpatrick called attention to the potential of a conflict of
interest in terms of funding; and the Chair of the Roanoke Arts Commission
should understand that the artist is raising the money for the project which
makes it different from other kinds of City projects.
Vice-Mayor Harris called attention to the importance of City staff reviewing
the proposal of the Roanoke Arts Commission before it is presented to the
Council.
The City Manager advised that a City staff liaison (Laurie Wood) has been
assigned the responsibility of working with the Roanoke Arts Commission to
address such issues as the process of funding, a staff position that was
requested in conjunction with the Public Art Plan, and the Unity Sculpture.
COMMITTEES/COMMUNITY PLANNING: Dr. Cutler called attention to the
importance of City of Roanoke representation on the Metropolitan Planning
Organization as the organization grows, and the importance of Metropolitan
Planning Organizations along 1-81 working together.
MUNICIPAL BUILDING-DISABLED PERSONS: Council Member Bestpitch
inquired as to what has been accomplished by restricting accessibility to the Noel
C. Taylor Municipal Building, to the main entrance on Church Avenue, S. W.,
compared to the inconvenience of citizens and employees by not being allowed
to use other entrances and exits, particularly the Second Street ramp to the north
part of the building. He stated that all persons should feel welcome in the
Municipal Building, regardless of their station in life, if they have business to
conduct, but at the same time the Municipal Building should not be a hangout for
people who do not have business to conduct and are simply passing through. He
stated that by the time the doors are unlocked to the Municipal Building in the
morning, those persons who have legitimate City business to conduct should be
provided with more convenient ingress and egress to and from the building,
particularly those with disabilities; therefore, he suggested that consideration be
given to making access to the Municipal Building more convenient for citizens,
particularly those with disabilities.
Council Member Wyatt expressed concern with regard to difficulty entering
the Municipal Building during evening hours; providing only one entrance/exit to
the building creates a safety issue, as well as an inconvenience to employees and
citizens; and the Municipal Building has become a user unfriendly facility.
The Mayor spoke in support of having a secure Municipal Building, while
not creating an inconvenience to citizens and employees.
The City Manager advised that the process began with the initiation of
identification badges for City employees prior to the September 11,200! event;
concerns were expressed by City employees who had encountered unauthorized
persons in their work areas; following the September 11 event and as the country
went to various levels of security, the City was advised by local law enforcement
authorities that there were too many access points to the Municipal Building,
therefore, an attempt was made to reduce the number of entry/exit areas; in the
case of emergencies, all doors open outward and an alarm is sounded; and the
goal was to reduce the number of access points so as to have a better
understanding of who is in the Municipal Building. She advised of plans to
implement a key card type system to record persons entering the building; the
handicap entrance on Second Street has remained open and is used by
handicapped persons; it was proposed to construct a ramp on the Church Avenue
side of the building, but the proposal was discarded due to lack of support by
the Mayor's Committee for People with Disabilities; and the Second Street ramp
leading to the north side of the Municipal Building has not been opened
inasmuch as the Registrar's Office is primarily the only occupant on the first floor
of the building. She advised of plans to installa handrail in the middle of the
Church Avenue steps for safety purposes, and called attention to other
suggestions for improved security that were offered, but not implemented such
as barricading parking areas.
Ms. Wyatt addressed the matter of persons who smoke in the vicinityofthe
Church Avenue main entrance to the Municipal Building which looks unsightly
and creates a congested area. She suggested that a smoking area be established
somewhere out of view by the general public.
Mr. Bestpitch inquired as to what action would be required in order for all
doors to the Municipal Building to remain open; whereupon, the City Manager
advised that it would involve removing the alarms; however, she expressed
concern in doing so because the north side of the Municipal Building is sparsely
occupied at this time since the Social Services Department relocated to the Civic
Mall on Williamson Road.
Mr. Fitzpatrick encouraged the opening of the Second Street side to the
Municipal Building first and that Council be advised if any problems or
threatening situations occur.
The Mayor called attention to what could be considered an unsafe working
area due to the location of the Office of the Assistant to the Mayor on the fourth
floor of the Municipal Building.
Mr. Harris moved that the Second Street entrance to the Municipal Building
be opened on a trial basis, with a report to Council in 60 days. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick and adopted.
6
SISTER CITIES: The Mayor advised that a delegation from Wonju, Korea,
Roanoke's Sister City, will visit the City of Roanoke from May 12-].6, 2004, and
the Sister Cities Committee has requested that a lunch or dinner be hosted by
the City in honor of the 40th Anniversary of the Roanoke/Wonju Sister City
relationship.
Following discussion, it was the consensus of Council to host a 40th
Anniversary Dinner in honor of the Roanoke/Wonju Sister City relationship on
Friday, May 14, 2004, at The Hotel Roanoke and Conference Center.
BRIEFINGS:
STATE HIGHWAYS: The City Manager introduced a briefing on Interstate
581/U. S. Route 220 Visual Improvement Landscape recommendations.
Robert K. Bengtson, Director of Public Works, advised that:
The City of Roanoke and the Virginia Department of Transportation, along
with Virginia Tech's Community Design Assistance Center, planned a
"gateway" into and through the City of Roanoke.
· The conceptual master plan includes landscape improvements along the ten
miles of 1-58]./U. S. Route 220 and at each interchange.
· The City's desire is to visually enhance the corridor while VDOT wishes to
reduce the maintenance of existing lawn areas.
Planning includes a "reforestation/meadow" approach since typical planting
beds would not work well in this particular corridor, due to the large size and
scale of corridor and interchanges, and includes the following types of
landscaping:
Forest Stable, Iow maintenance ecosystem
Meadow Long grasses and wildflowers to be mowed once per year
Pastoral landscape groupings of trees in a mowed lawn (most
expensive to build and maintain)
Lawn Verge - Edge of grass maintained along the road
Interchange designs would use these types of landscaping in combination to
create a series of forested nodes with a variety of pastoral and meadow
schemes; and the lawn verge would occur at all locations to tie the design
together.
· In an effort to achieve a more immediate visual impact, plans were modified
to add formal planting areas within the design at appropriate locations.
· Corridor design also identified approximately 12 critical areas where
enhancement or screening of views from the corridor would be beneficial.
Council Member Cutler inquired as to whether a proposed budget has been
prepared and a description of the role and responsibility of each of the partners
in the project; i.e.: the Virginia Department of Transportation, the City of
Roanoke, Valley Beautiful, businesses, etc; whereupon, Mr. Bengtson advised that
at this time, the City will not have a role in the maintenance of any of the areas
along 1-581, the approach being that VDOT will maintain the reforested areas,
meadow areas and pastoral landscape clusters of trees, with a five year
commitment by the person or business committing to a specific area, the cost of
which would vary from interchange to interchange.
The City Manager advised that the City's Volunteer Coordinator has
prepared a formal Volunteer Program and expressed an interest in encouraging
businesses, individuals, etc; to adopt a spot, or street, or formal flowered area,
and commit to the five year maintenance of the area once plantings are
completed. She also advised that this kind of need was indicated in the City's
Long-Range Transportation Planning process.
From a business point of view, the Mayor stated that a five year
commitment might meet with some resistance by the business community
because businesses have varying degrees of successful years.
There was discussion in regard to maintenance in which it was noted that
City Jail inmate crews currently handle some of the road side maintenance.
Ms. Wyatt advised that as the first 1-581 exchange is completed, a
ceremonial event should be held to call attention to enhancements and to point
out that any person convicted of littering will be prosecuted to the fullest extent
of the law.
Mr. Fitzpatrick supported the recommendations and agreed that the City
should ask businesses for a five year commitment, but ifa five year commitment
is not feasible, the City should be amenable to a two year commitment; and
Valley View Mall will be affected by two 1-581 interchanges, therefore shopp ng
center officials should be contacted in regard to participating in the program. He
called attention to a recent article that appeared in The Roanoke Times
concerning a citizen who wishes to plant and maintain trees at various locations
on 1-581 and suggested that the City offer its support.
Mayor Smith suggested that the City obtain awritten commitment from the
Virginia Department of Transportation regarding 1-581 entrances/exits to the
City, volunteers, safety issues, etc. He stressed the importance of providinga
good visual impression for those persons traveling the 1-58! gateways to the
City.
Mr. Bestpitch moved that the City Attorney be instructed to prepare the
proper measure to be forwarded to the appropriate officials of the Virginia
Department of Transportation in support of a pro. iect initiated by a citizen to
plant trees at various locations along 1-581. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Fitzpatrick and adopted.
At 10:40 a.m., the Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess for a
meeting of the Budget and Planning Committee, to be followed by a meeting of
the Audit Committee.
At 12:00 p.m., the Council meeting reconvened in Room 159, Noel C. Taylor
Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., for a joint meeting of Council and
the Roanoke City School Board, with Mayor Ralph K. Smith and School Board Chair
Gloria P. Manns presiding.
PRESENT: Council Members C. Nelson Harris, Linda F. Wyatt, William D.
Bestpitch, M. Rupert Cutler, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., and
Mayor Ralph K. Smith ................................................ 7.
ABSENT: None ................................................. O.
SCHOOL TRUSTEES PRESENT: William H. Lindsey, Alvin L. Nash, Robert
Sparrow, Kathy G. Stockburger, David B. Trinkle, Ruth C. Willson and Chairperson
Gloria P. Manns ....................................................... 7.
ABSENT: None ................................................. 0.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Representing the City of Roanoke: Darlene L. Burcham,
City Manager; Timothy R. Spencer, Assistant City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of
Finance; Mary F. Parker, City Clerk; Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager for
Community Development; and George C. Snead, Jr., Assistant City Manager for
Operations.
Representing the Roanoke City Public Schools: E. Wayne Harris,
Superintendent; and Cindy H. Lee, Clerk to the School Board.
Following lunch, the business session convened at 12:40 p.m.
9
SCHOOLS-HEALTH INSURANCE STIPEND FOR RETIRED TEACHERS:
Council Member Wyatt advised that for some time retired teachers have tried
to obtain a State stipend of $75.00 to be used toward the cost of health insurance,
which is available provided that the locality will fund an additional $30.00, and
amounts to approximately $213,000.00 per year from the City of Roanoke.
Superintendent Harris called attention to two health insurance options
currently available to retired school employees; one option is provided through the
Virginia Retirement System to all school employees who are retired under the
State's retirement system; the second is a health insurance option which is offered
through the City of Roanoke for City employees; because transportation, food
service, maintenance and custodial employees are employed by Roanoke City
Schools, but are participants in the City's retirement system, one system cannot be
discussed without the other; if the School Board were to approve a credit toward
health insurance for retired employees, it would also be appropriate to provide the
same insurance credit for those school employees who participate in the City's
retirement system and the cost would be more than the $213,000.00 per year
referenced by Ms. Wyatt. He explained that currently those employees who are
members of VRS receive an automatic health insurance credit of $2.50 per month
for each year of service up to a maximum of $75.00 per month, or $900.00
annually from the State; an additional amount of $30.00 per month, or $1,260.00,
annually could be received by retirees if approved by the School Board toward
health insurance costs; there is no question that health insurance premiums have
increased dramatically over the past several years; however, the impact to the
School budget of providing $30.00 per month, or $1,260.00 annually, toward the
credit that retirees currently receive would amount to approximately $226,879.00
which would be a recurring cost that would continue to escalate as the number of
employees increase. He noted that 16 school districts out of 133 have approved
the option; most of the school districts that have approved the option are small
jurisdictions and have small numbers of retirees; from the Roanoke area, only the
Counties of Botetourt and Craig and the City of Salem have approved the option;
and across the Commonwealth of Virginia, most large school districts do not
provide the credit due to recurring costs. In reviewing the City's health insurance
credit, he advised that $206.25 per month, or $2,475.00 annually is provided
toward the cost of health insurance for retired employees; and it would cost the
school system an additional $62,700.00 for the next fiscal year added to the
$226,879.00. In preparing past fiscal year budgets, he stated that the request was
viewed as aworthy benefit, but other issues have competed for funding, therefore,
no recommendation has been made to the School Board.
l0
The City Manager stated that the split between employee groups into
different retirement systems is unusual and is not the norm in the Commonwealth
of Virginia; and school districts in Virginia are required to participate in the VRS
system and do not have the option that the City of Roanoke and nine other
communities have chosen; i.e.: a private retirement system. She inquired as to why
there are classified employees in one retirement system versus the other, should
the policy continue for the future, and does the matter warrant review by staff.
Dr. Harris advised that with two retirement systems, other issues in addition
to insurance benefits are affected; the City's retirement system is a better system
than VRS in terms of final retirement benefits and he did not know the background
for two retirement systems.
Chairperson Manns advised that the question is, does two retirement systems
make sense, and is therea need to change the structure in the future. The City
Manager advised that the City administration would be willing to work with the
School administration to study the issue.
Dr. Harris advised that Richard A. Kelley, Assistant Superintendent, can
provide historical data on how the two retirement systems evolved and report back
to the School Board and the Council.
CONSOLIDATION OF CITY/SCHOOL PROCESSES; I.E.: PURCHASING, HUMAN
RESOURCES AND HEALTH CARE:
Dr. Cutler spoke to the merits of consolidation of processes such as
purchasing, human resources and health care. He referred to an earlier discussion
as a part of the Audit Committee meeting with regard to mowing operations on
school grounds and inquired if mowing and playground maintenance operations
could be consolidated for the mutual benefit of the City and the Schools. He
suggested that there be some form of bench marking to determine how the issue is
addressed by other localities.
Dr. Harris advised that other cities engage in a number of joint pro.iects;
whereupon, he called upon Dr. CrystaI-Cregger, Supervisor of Procurement and
Manager of Purchasing and Contract Services, to address the issue.
Dr. Cregger advised that meetings have been held by City/School staff to
identify areas of consolidation of services such as motor fuel for the automotive
fleet, towing services, and office supplies, and the City of Roanoke is working with
the City of Lynchburg to consolidate the fuel contract which will lead to more
buying power for the localities.
l!
Dr. Harris advised that the School system is also working with the City on a
joint minority businesses enterprise conference which will be held in June, 2004.
Dr. Cutler advised that the Municipal Auditor presented athorough report on
playgrounds, periodic inspections and certification of persons who perform
inspections and operate motorized equipment, in order to maintain the parks and
playgrounds, and the importance of ensuring that playground equipment is in good
working condition. He inquired if there is an interest in exploring joint City/School
participation in the inspection of playground equipment/facilities; whereupon, Dr.
Harris advised that the suggestion could be further explored.
Mayor Smith questioned the need for both City and School staff to engage in
mowing operations. He also questioned why one entity can perform the service at a
lesser cost than the other; and the least expensive method should be used by both
entities. He also questioned the need for mowing equipment by both the City and
the School system and advised that he would look to the City Manager and the
Superintendent of Schools for a recommendation on the most cost efficient manner
to approach the issue.
George C. Snead,Jr., Assistant City Manager for Operations, advised that the
Schools propose to use part-time summer employees for mowing purposes, in
addition to purchasing mowing equipment; the City's proposal to the Schools,
which was more expensive than the Schools estimate, called for using current City
employees, purchasing a new piece of equipment, mowing at 15 sites at a
prescribed contract frequency, with the ability to mow with more frequency, if
necessary, at certain sites.
Dr. Harris added that the City requested the School system to purchase a
mower at a cost of $62,000.00 and the School system is of the opinion that if it
purchases the equipment, part time school employees could be used and it would
be more economical for the School system to handle its own mowing. Mr. Snead
clarified that when the mowing contract was entered into, the School system
purchased two pieces of equipment for park maintenance, which enables the
mowing of a 16 foot swarth of grass leading to greater efficiency because larger
areas can be mowed at one time.
Dr. Harris advised that the School system will continue to work with the City
administration on areas of joint cooperation.
In response to an inquiry regarding savings, if any, through a joint health
insurance plan for City and School employees, Dr. Harris called on Paul Britt,
Executive for Human Resources, who advised that meetings of City and School staff
have been held to discuss a combined health insurance plan and a joint health
clinic for City and School employees. He advised that the feasibility of combining
health insurance plans for all City and School employees under a single health plan,
thereby reducing cost, was discussed; and discussions focused on two particular
12
areas: a comparison of current health insurance plans and an employee health
clinic; an analysis of the health insurance plans revealed certain obstacles would be
encountered in order to provide for a single health insurance plan for City and
School employees due to the differences in the two plans; and timing is also an
issue in terms of how to unite under a single plan for both organizations. He
stated that on October 1, 2003, the School system reduced its health plan to a
single plan design option, because the School system was facing a 30 per cent
increase in costs, which would have resulted in a net of about $2 million for School
employees and $2 million for the School budget.
Mr. Britt further advised that the second issue centers around the employee
health clinic; currently Roanoke City operates its own health clinic which is located
on Kirk Avenue, S. W., in downtown Roanoke and is similar to the School facility
which is located on Ferncliff Avenue, N. W., where minor injuries are treated,
physicals are performed, along with drug screening. He stated that if both facilities
were combined, a more centralized location would be needed in order to serve the
large number of patients that would be seen through a joint venture for both
Roanoke City and the Roanoke City Public Schools. He stated that to combine both
organizations under one health plan at this time is not believed to be cost
effective, both plans would be required to undergo major changes, especially in
view of the decision in October to unite School employees under one health plan.
He further stated that combining the health clinics of both organizations could be
beneficial, with on staff physicians that would lead to a reduction in the number of
trips to a regular physician's office; and the feasibility of combining the health
insurance plans of the City and the School System should be studied further in the
next three to five years.
In clarification, Dr. Harris advised that on October :~, 2003, the Roanoke City
Public Schools switched from providing two health care options from which School
employees could choose, to one, thus providing a more comprehensive health
insurance plan at a reduced cost, therefore, he would hesitate to recommend any
changes at this time; however, a joint health clinic for the two entities could be
pursued by City and School staff.
The City Manager advised that thinking long term, it would be to the benefit
of the City and the Schools to have health insurance plans that are more
comparable, then look at the issue of consolidation, etc, and timing is an important
issue to be considered.
STATE BUDGET:
The City Manager advised that on Tuesday, April 6, 2004, Senator John S.
Edwards and Delegate Onzlee Ware will jointly sponsor a public forum in the
Auditorium at William Fleming High School to seek public comments on the status
of the State budget. She stated that the School Board will also be in session at
William Fleming High School at the same time and encouracted the School Board,
staff, parents and other interested parties to let their views I~e known at the public
forum.
PATRICK HENRY HIGH SCHOOL RENOVATION PROJECT/CITY DEBT CAPACITY:
Vice-Mayor Harris advised that at the Budget and Planning Committee
meeting which was held earlier in the day, Council was briefed by the Director of
Finance on capital projects in the context of the City's debt policy. He stated that
the bottom line is that the City has planned for William Fleming High School
improvements and to partner with the School Board in servicing of the debt, but
the caveat is, if there is a significant cost overrun, the City will be in a problematic
situation relative to other projects that are currently on the drawing board, and
speaking as one Member of Council, he would not be in favor of shifting the City's
debt policies to accommodate debt. He added that it is important to remember
that the City accommodates its debt to debt policies, and not vice versa, which has
allowed the City to maintain its AA bond rating as referenced by the City's bond
rating agencies in their reports at the time of financing or refinancing of bonds.
Vice-Mayor Harris called upon the Director of Finance to present a summary
of the briefing that was presented to Council at a meeting of the Budget and
Planning Committee.
The Director of Finance advised that:
The debt policy was initially adopted by Council in September, ][999,
and updated in April 2003; the Government Finance Officers
Association "best practice" was developed to establish parameters for
issuance of debt, to outline the purposes for which debt may be used,
to establish monitoring tools to enable bench marking of debt
internally and in comparison to other similar localities, and to
demonstrate a commitment to long range financial planning; and the
policy was developed in coordination with the City's financial advisor,
BB&T Capital Markets, and in communication with the Municipal Bond
Rating Agencies: Moody's, Standard and Poor and Fitch.
14
Components of the Policy include:
Introduction
Guidelines for Debt Issuance
Limitations on Level of Debt to be Issued and Outstanding
Self-Imposed Debt Targets
Types of Debt Issuance
Advance Refunding of Debt
Investor Relations, Disclosure and Communication
Debt service fund balance
Definitions
Planned Bond Issues Tax Supported:
Fiscal year 2005
Lincoln Terrace Elementary School - $1,300,000.00
Police Building Phase II - $6,670,000.00
Fire - EMS Facilities - $4,431,000.00
Art Museum/iMAX Theater - $3,700,000.00
Riverside Centre for Research and Technology - $5,400,000.00
Patrick Henry High School - $39,275.00'
Fiscal year 2006
Patrick Henry High School - $7,500,000.00*
Elementary School Additions - $4,700,000.00
*The total to be issued for Patrick Henry High School between FY05 and
FY06 is $46,775,000.
Planned Bond Issues-Tax Supported:
Fiscal year 2007
Elementary School Additions - $2,000,000.00
Fiscal year 2008
Multi Purpose Recreation Center- $7,000,000.00
Fire - EMS Facilities - $4,400,000.00
Flood Reduction Project - $5,000,000.00
William Fleming High School - $37,275,000.00*
Fiscal year 2009
William Fleming High School - $7,500,000.00*
*The total to be issued for William Fleming High School between FY08 and
FY09 is $44,775,000.00.
Assumptions on Debt and Funding of Debt Service
Tax supported debt includes general obligation bonds, VPSA bonds,
QZABs, Literary Fund Loans and capital leases; future General
Obligation and Virginia Public School Authority bonds were amortized
using level principal and an interest rate of five per cent in 2005 and
six per cent in years beyond 2005; future Literary Fund Loans were
amortized at an interest rate of three per cent; all debt amortized over
20 years.
Funding for debt service increases based on the following assumptions:
Increased funding of debt service of an additional $570,000.00 per
year through fiscal year 2009
Dedication to debt service funding of incremental increases in EMS
fees through fiscal year 2007.
Future City and School Debt Service:
15.000-
0 IO.O00-
C~
0
'- 5.000-
0
0.000
ISchool Paid I
IOCity Paid by City OSchool Paid by City ISchool Paid by School
16
Ratio
(10%)
of Debt Service to General and School Fund Expenditures
City School
Projects Projects Overall
· FY 2001 4.2% 2.4% 6.6%
· FY 2002 4.1% 2.3% 6.4%
· FY 2003 5.9% 3.0% 8.8%
· FY 2004 4.7% 2.5% 7.2%
· FY 2005 4.6% 2.7% 7.3%
· FY 2006 5.1% 3.9% 9.0%
· FY 2007 4.8% 4.0% 8.8%
· FY 2008 4.5% 3.9% 8.3%
· FY 2009 4.8% 4.9% 9.7%
· FY 2010 4.5% 4.8% 9.3%
Note: Assumes annual expenditure growth of 4%
Debt Service Compared to General and School Fund Expenditure 10% Limit
(In millions)
40.000
35.000
30.000
25.000
20.000
15.000
10.000.
5.000.
Future Debt Service
10% of Expenditure
]7
Ratio of Net Bonded Debt to Assessed Value of Real Estate (5%)
City School
Projects Projects Overall
FY 200! 2.0% !.6% 3.6%
FY 2002 2.8% !.7% 4.5%
FY 2003 2.5% 1.5% 4.0%
FY 2004 2.2% !.5% 3.7%
FY 2005 2.4% 2.2% 4.6%
FY 2006 2.:~% 2.3% 4.4%
FY 2007 1.8% 2.!% 3.9%
FY 2008 1.9% 2.6% 4.5%
FY 2009 !.6% 2.4% 4.!%
FY 20!0 !.4% 2.2% 3.6%
Note: Assumes growth of 4% in assessed value of real estate.
Net Bonded Debt Compared to 5% Limit Future Assessed Value of Real
Estate
(in millions)
400.000
350.000
300.000
250.000
200.000
150.000
100.000
50.000
0.000
Future Outstanding
- 5% of Reap Estate
Reduction of Aggregate Debt within Ten Years (50 per cent)
(Reflects Issuance of Planned Future Debt)
City Schools Overall
FY 2004 74% 70% 72%
FY 2005 72% 67% 70%
FY 2006 75% 64% 70%
FY 2007 77% 71% 74%
FY 2008 76% 62% 68%
FY 2009 79% 68% 73%
FY 2010 83% 71% 76%
Question was raised as to whether the $3.7 million for the Art Museum/IMAX
Theater will be needed in fiscal year 2005; whereupon, the City Manager advised
that the Executive Director states that the funds will not be needed until after July
1, 2004.
Ms. Wyatt inquired about future and pending major projects that are not
currently included on the list of capital projects; whereupon, the City Manager
advised that as a result of the library study there is an expectation that some
improvements will be needed to the library, whether it be renovation of the
Commonwealth Building or other improvements; the Parks and Recreation Master
Plan calls for two multi-purpose centers, as well as other improvements such as
historic buildings (i.e. taking recreation programs out of buildings like Mountain
View Recreation Center in order to preserve the facility); additional fire stations that
are planned as Phase II and Phase III that will include a new fire station in the
Williamson Road area because it is expected that the Airport will take over the fire
station currently located at the Airport to be used strictly for Airport purposes; and
storm water management, with the expectation that the function will be user fee
generated.
There being no further business, at 1:30 p.m., the Mayor declared the
meeting of Council in recess until 1:35 p.m., in the Council's Conference Room,
fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building; and Chairperson Manns declared
the meeting of the School Board adjourned at 1:30 p.m.
At 1:35 p.m. the Council meeting reconvened in the Council's Conference
Room, forth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, for a briefing on the
Housing Strategic Plan, with all Members of the Council in attendance, except
Council Members Fitzpatrick and Dowe, with Mayor Smith presiding.
]9
HOUSING/AUTHORITY: The City Manager recognized Michael Etienne,
Director of Housing and Neighborhood Services, for a briefing on the Housing
Strategic Plan.
Mr. Etienne advised that:
The Comprehensive Plan, Vision 2001-2020, calls for a Housing
Strategic Plan.
The Plan will serve as a City wide goal and policy document for the
development of a diversity of housing choices.
The consultant team consists of K. W. Poore and Associates, with 25
years of project management, general planning services and
facilitation experience; and Development Strategies, Inc., with 35 years
of market analysis, survey research and .marketing advice.
· Intended outcomes of the Housing Strategic Plan include:
To identify opportunities for the development of suitable housing in
strong neighborhoods.
To provide guidelines for residential investors and builders.
To identify strategies to provide a diversity of housing choices for
diverse households and lifestyles.
To provide recommendations on how to reduce concentration of
poverty, Iow-income housing, and encourage mixed income
neighborhoods.
To promote market-rate and upscale housing City-wide.
· The facts are:
There is a steady population decline
There is a Iow per capita income compared to the region
There is a high concentration of poverty
There is aging housing stock and neighborhoods
There is a high concentration of Iow-income housing and
vacant units
2O
There is Iow median house value
There is Iow home ownership rate
There is a lack of steady supply of market rate and upscale housing.
Regional Population Trend, 1990- 2000
City ol
City ¢ Salem
Roanoke -1.6%1
~oanoke County
Iotetourt ( ounty
-5.0% 0.0%
~%
5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0%
IB Percent Change
Source: U.S, Census Bureau.
21
Per Capita Income Comparison
Chart 5: Per Capita Income Coml~rison Roanoke MSA
$$0,000 (in constant 2000 Dollars)
I
$25,000 [ ........
$24,637
$20,000 {$19,00~ $18,871r~----- $18,2021'"r~ $18,468 $19,068520'091
$15,000
$10,000
USA MSA Botetourt Roanoke County Roanoke City Salem City
Concentration of Poverty, 2000
Persons Below Poverty Level, 2000
15.9%
4.5%
6 ;6 D/o
22
Aging Housing Stock, 2000
Botetourt Roanoke City of City of
County County Roanoke Salem
(12,571) (36,121) (45,257) (10,403)
1990 to 2000 3,132 5,592 2,817 1,118
1970 to 1 989 4,731 16,663 9,451 3,207
1 940 to 1 969 2,950 11,997 23,490 4,882
1939 or earlier 1,758 1,869 9,499 1,196
Subsidized and Vacant Housing, 2000
Subsidized Housing -- Public & Section 8
0 0%
83 {3%)
2,673
(97%)
· Botetourt County
· Roanoke County
[] City of Roanoke
[] City of Salem
Percent of the Region's Total Vacant Units
54.~%-
Botetourt Roanoke City of City of
County County Roanoke Salem
23
House Value, 2003
House Value City of Roanoke
Less than $50,000 15.9%
$50,000 - 79,999 34.0%
$80,000 - 99,999 26.6%
$100,000 - 124,999 11.0%
$125,000 and over 12.5%
Sours: US. Census Bureau.
Homeownership Rate, 2000
88%
12%
Homeownership Rate, 2000
77%
68%
I__~ ~nn~ee rC~TM
24
Diversity of Housing Choices, 2003
$125K to $175K
City of Roanoke
· Input by Stakeholders:
Key Impediments to Developing Upscale Housing:
Negative perception of the public schools
Aging housing stock and infrastructure
Lack of available land for new construction
Lack of housing diversity and supply
Poor marketing of the City
· Possible Solutions:
Perception of the City as a whole needs to change
City may need to re-focus its housing incentive programs
25
Provide incentives for developers and high-end buyers
Focus on developing market-rate housing, while improving the
quality of Iow to moderate income housing.
· Current Initiatives to Reverse the Trends:
Denying Low Income Housing Tax Credit proposals desiring to
continue the concentration of Iow-income housing in the City
Soliciting development proposals for City-owned properties to
promote mixed-use, higher-end housing
Providing pre-development financing and infrastructure assistance to
market-rate housing developers
Sponsoring a national Housing Design Competition
Exploring ways to creatively use Community Development Block Grant
funds to promote the development of high-end housing
Revitalizing inner-city neighborhoods by adding additional amenities
that will raise property values and ultimately attract higher-income
residents to those neighborhoods
· Project Approach:
The Planning process is divided into three phases:
Phase One: Housing Market Research
Analyze conduct focus group meetings to identify attitudes and
perceptions
Assess the competitive regional housing market data
Advantages/disadvantages of Roanoke compared to the region
Identity "market niches" that Roanoke's neighborhoods serve
Phase Two: Strategic Planning
Develop neighborhood improvement programs
Long term strategies to promote the City's housing stock and
neighborhoods
26
Long term strategies to develop upscale housing
Initiatives to improve Roanoke's competitiveness within the region
Phase Three: Adoption by Council
Public participation will be included in all three phases
Project Schedule
MARKET RESEARCH
STRATEGIC PLANNING
BY COUNClL
The Steering Committee is composed of the following:
Roanoke City Council:
Alfred T. Dowe, Jr.
Linda F. Wyatt
Roanoke City School Board:
Alvin L. Nash
City Planning Commission:
Paula Prince
Board of Zoning Appeals:
Joel Richert
27
City Staff:
Beth Neu
Brian Townsend
Mike Etienne
Rolanda Russell
Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority:
Ben Fink
John Baker
Roanoke Neighborhood Advocates:
Shirley Bethel
Roanoke Valley Association of Realtors:
Kit Hale
Downtown Roanoke, Inc.
David Diaz
Homebuilders Association:
Amy Kelderhouse
Regional Housing Network:
Laura Benjamin
Regional Planning Commission:
Eddie Wells
Industrial Development Authority:
Gordon Hancock
It was noted by a Member of Council that some persons might say that the
City is attempting to position Iow income persons out of their traditional
neighborhoods; whereupon, Mr. Etienne responded that the goal is to provide
diversity in neighborhoods by not concentrating one income group or race in a
neighborhood.
An observation was made by a Member of Council that the City should
constantly look for ways to promote home ownership because the number one way
for most Iow income persons to build wealth in their personal life is through home
ownership.
ACTS OF ACKNOWLEGEDMENT:
The City Manager advised that the City of Roanoke will be recognized as one
of America's Most Liveable Communities at an event to be held on Tuesday, April
20, 2004, at the National Press Club in Washington, D. C. She stated that the
28
award is presented to five small cities in the United States by Partners for Liveable
Communities, a nonprofit organization, in recognition of those communities that
are attempting to develop their localities in a creative economy and taking major
strides to prepare for the new global economy. She inquired as to whether Council
would like for staff to coordinate a local celebration for Roanoke's citizens
following the event.
It was the consensus of Council to hold a community celebration at a later
date.
The Council meeting was declared in recess at 1:55 p.m., to be reconvened
at 2:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber.
At 2:00 p.m., on Monday, April 5, 2004, the Council meeting reconvened in
the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215
Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor Smith presiding.
PRESENT: Council Members C. Nelson Harris, Linda F. Wyatt, William D.
Bestpitch, M. Rupert Cutler, Alfred T. Dowe,Jr., BeverlyT. Fitzpatrick, Jr. (arrived
late), and Mayor Ralph K. Smith ...................................... 7.
ABSENT: None ............................................... O.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; Timothy R. Spencer,
Assistant City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker,
City Clerk.
The meeting was opened with a prayer by The Reverend Richard Mallory,
Pastor, Morgans Baptist Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was
led by Mayor Smith.
PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
PROCLAMATIONS: The Mayor presented a proclamation declaring the
month of April 2004, as Scottish American History and Heritage Month.
PROCLAMATIONS-HOUSING/AUTHORITY: The Mayor presented
proclamation declaring the month of April 2004, as Fair Housing Month.
a
PROCLAMATIONS-COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT: The Mayor presented a
proclamation declaring the week of April 11 - 17, 2004, as National Public Safety
Telecommunicator's Week.
29
CONSENT AGENDA
The Mayor advised that all matters listed under the Consent Agenda were
considered to be routine by the Members of Council and would be enacted by
one motion in the form, or forms, listed on the Consent Agenda, and if
discussion was desired, the item would be removed from the Consent Agenda
and considered separately.
ROANOKE MEMORIAL HOSPITALS-DONATIONS/CONTRIBUTIONS-CITY
PROPERTY: A communication from the City Manager advising that pursuant to
requirements of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, the City of Roanoke is
required to hold a public hearing on the proposed conveyance of City-owned
property; whereupon, she requested that Council authorize a public hearing to
be held on Monday, April 19, 2004, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the
matter may be heard, on the proposed conveyance of a portion of City owned
property, Official Tax No. 4060502, to Roanoke Memorial Hospital, was before
the body.
Mr. Cutler moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and Mayor
Smith .............................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ................................................. 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was not present when the vote was recorded.)
EASEMENTS-PARKS AND RECREATION-ROANOKE GAS COMPANY: A
communication from the City Manager advising that pursuant to requirements of
the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the City of Roanoke is required to hold a
public hearing on the proposed conveyance of an easement; whereupon, she
requested that Council authorize a public hearing to be held on Monday, April
19, 2004, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the
proposed conveyance of an easement in Jackson Park to Roanoke Gas Company,
was before the body.
3o
Mr. Cutler moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and Mayor
Smith .............................................................. 6.
NAYS: ........................................................ 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was not present when the vote was recorded.)
EASEMENTS-CABLE TELEVISION: A communication from the City Manager
advising that pursuant to requirements of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended, the City of Roanoke is required to hold a public hearing on the
proposed conveyance of an easement; whereupon, she requested that Council
authorize a public hearing to be held on Monday, April 19, 2004, at 7:00 p.m., or
as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the proposed conveyance of
an easement at 111 Franklin Road, S.W., to Cox Communications, was before the
body.
Mr. Cutler moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and Mayor
Smith .............................................................. 6.
NAYS: None .................................................... 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was not present when the vote was recorded.)
LEASES-COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA BUILDING: A communication from
the City Manager advising that the United States General Services Administration
(GSA) currently leases space within the Commonwealth Building; GSA uses the
second floor of the building for the Federal Bankruptcy Court and affiliated
offices; the current lease expired on January 31, 2004; GSA wishes to continue its
lease of the second floor and to begin leasing an office suite on the first floor as
well; and GSA also wishes to extend the current agreement to allow time to
complete the necessary improvements to the expanded area before executing the
new lease, was before Council.
The City Manager recommended that Council authorize a public hearing to
be held on Monday, April 19, 2004, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the
matter may be heard.
Mr. Cutler moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and Mayor
Smith .............................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ................................................... 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was not present when the vote was recorded.)
COMMITTEES-SCHOOLS: A communication from Harriet S. Lewis tendering
her resignation as a member of the Virginia Western Community College Board of
Directors, was before the Council.
Mr. Cutler moved that the resignation be accepted and that the
communication be received and filed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe
and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and Mayor
Smith .............................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ................................................... 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was not present when the vote was recorded.)
COMMITTEES-YOUTH: A communication from Marion Vaughn-Howard,
Superintendent, Youth Services Division, Parks and Recreation Department,
advising of the resignations of Cheryl D. Evans, Amy R. Barger and Jamaal
Jackson as members of the Youth Services Citizen Board, was before Council.
Mr. Cutler moved that the resignations be accepted and that the
communication be received and filed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe
and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and Mayor
Smith .............................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ................................................... 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was not present when the vote was recorded.)
COMMITTEES-HOUSING/AUTHORITY: A communication from Joseph F. Lynn
tendering his resignation as a member of the Roanoke Redevelopment and
Housing Authority, effective March 8, 2004, was before Council.
32
Mr. Cutler moved that the resignation be accepted and that the
communication be received and filed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe
and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and Mayor
Smith ............................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ................................................... 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was not present when the vote was recorded.)
BUILDINGS/BUILDING DEPARTMENT-COMMITTEES-GREENWAY SYSTEM:
The following reports of qualification were before Council:
Peter W. Clapsaddle as a member of the New Construction Code,
Board of Appeals, for a term ending September 30, 2008; and
Talfourd (Fourd) H. Kemper, Jr., as a member of the Roanoke Valley
Greenway Commission to fill the unexpired term of Brian Shepard,
resigned, ending June 30, 2004.
Mr. Cutler moved that the reports of qualification be received and filed.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and Mayor
Smith .............................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ................................................... 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was not present when the vote was recorded.)
REGULAR AGENDA
SCHOOLS: The Mayor advised that the following persons have applied for
two vacancies on the Roanoke City School Board, for terms commencing July 1,
2004 and ending June 30, 2007:
Dennis M. Binns
Chris H. Craft
Robert R. Craig
David M. Dabay
Roddy L. Hiduskey
Glenda D. Lee
Alvin L. Nash
Samuel Robinson
Linda F. Wright
Linda F. Wyatt
Council Member Wyatt read the following statement:
"STATEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
I Linda F. Wyatt state that I have a personal interest in the selection of
persons to be interviewed for appointment to the Roanoke City School Board.
Therefore, pursuant to Virginia Code Section 2.2-3112, I must refrain from
participation in this matter, l ask that the City Clerk accept this statement and
ask that it be made a part of the minutes of this meeting.
Witness the following signature made this 5'h day of April 2004.
S/ Linda F. Wyatt"
The Mayor stated that on or before April 20 of each year, Council must
select the names of those persons to receive the formal interview for School
Trustee, which interviews will be held on Thursday, April 22, 2004, at 4:30 p.m.,
in the Council Chamber. He advised that the matter will be discussed as a part of
the Council's Closed Session regarding vacancies on boards and commissions.
(See page 51 for further information on this item.)
PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
AIRPORT-BUDGET: A communication from Jacqueline L. Shuck, Executive
Director, Roanoke Regional Airport, advising that in accordance with
requirements of the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission Contract dated
January 28, 1987, as amended, the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission is
submitting its Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Operating Budget for approval, which
budget was adopted by the Airport Commission at its meeting on March lO,
2004, and includes a separate listing of Capital Expenditures that are expected
to exceed $100,000.00 in cost and are intended to benefit five or more future
accounting periods.
34
Mr. Restpitch offered the following resolution:
(#36648-040504) A RESOLUTION approving the Roanoke Regional Airport
Commission's 2004-2005 proposed operating and capital budget, upon certain
terms and conditions.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68.)
Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36648-040504. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and Mayor
Smith .............................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ................................................... 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was not present when the vote was recorded.)
(Council Member Fitzpatrick entered the meeting.)
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
CITY MANAGER:
BRIEFINGS:
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: The City Manager submitted a status report on
Affirmative Action and Diversity Initiatives of the City of Roanoke for calendar
year 2003.
She advised that as one of the largest and the most ethnically and racially
diverse communities in the Roanoke Valley, it is important for the City of
Roanoke to encourage participation in all employment processes among the
diverse population that it serves; with this goal in mind, the City is focusing on
two diversity related initiatives: increasing the diversity of its workforce and
developing the knowledge and skill base needed for success in a diverse work
environment; and the City's success in accomplishing these initiatives will make
the City of Roanoke a better organization and ultimately help the City to reach
the strategic goals set by the Council.
It was further advised that efforts at increasing workforce diversity are
based on a broad and focused recruitment program; the City continues to forge
relationships and to develop partnerships among City staff, EEO/civil rights
organizations, colleges and universities, sororities, fraternities and other groups
interested in diversity; and progress continues to be made in this area.
It was explained that during 2003, several African-Americans were hired m
two key positions, the Director of Civic Facilities and the Director of Housing and
Neighborhood Services, as well as the Acting Director of Management and
Budget; total employment by department and EEO categories as of December 31,
2003, are detailed in attachments to the report; and since the beginning of 2004,
the City has hired women in the positions of Director of Human Services and as
the Acting Manager of Purchasing, which key appointments, in addition to those
that occurred in 2003, are another indicator of the City's commitment to a more
diverse workforce.
It was further explained that employment data for 2003 shows that 42 of
the 202 new hires (19.7 per cent) and 20 of the :~02 promoted (19.6 per cent)
were people of color; while this information is somewhat different from last year,
25.6 per cent and 19.7 per cent respectively, it is important to note that the
number of new hires who are minorities and/or women in the protective service
category increased slightly; Police, Sheriffand Fire/EMS represent 28 per cent of
the City's workforce and each of these departments have promotional systems
that are substantially closed to outside candidates (as is the case with most
comprehensive public safety departments nationally); therefore, if the City is to
increase the number of women and minorities substantially in these
departments, it must be done at the entry level and the City is committed to this
effort; and City staff will continue to refine the City's recruiting methods to
accomplish this objective.
It was advised that in May 2003, the Department of Human Resources, in
partnership with the Roanoke Branch of the NAACP, sponsored the third
Recruitment Day; out of 55 attendees, four were ultimately hired, which
represents the highest new hire ratio for this event; the City has established
relations with over ten colleges and universities, as well as participated in a
Technology Job Fair in Richmond that was part of the Mid-Eastern Athletic
Conference (MEAC) basketball tournament; the City continues its recruitment
efforts at military installations and historically black colleges and universities;
however, military base recruitment has slowed due to the current conflict in the
Middle East; the City continues to co-sponsor This Valley Works Job Fair, which
attracts more than 2400 job applicants and 60 employers each year; the
Internship Program continues to attract high-caliber rising college seniors and
ten interns were hired last year, one-half of which were persons of color; as a
part of the Internship Program, the City has forged relationships with the civil
engineering programs at the University of Virginia, Virginia Tech and North
Carolina A&'F State University in an effort to place women, or persons of color, in
either a cooperative education arrangement or an internship; the City also
participated in the Minority Job Expo sponsored by The Roanoke Times; and
recruitment initiatives will continue to emphasize building relations with local
groups interested in workforce diversity.
It was stated that the City is making headway in its diversity efforts, but it
needs to take the next step; in a practical sense, ownership of leading diversity
efforts will be moved from Human Resources to an internal Leadership Diversity
Advisory Group; using employee survey data collected by Virginia Tech as a
starting point, the group will work to understand individual and departmental
impediments related to diversity, and advise training staff, Human Resources and
the City Manager concerning diversity programs and policies; in order to improve
the City's ability to recruit more women and people of color, particularly in public
safety positions, the City will continue to refine its efforts to attract more women
and minorities; and using ideas from an advertising company, coupled with
strategies to recruit at different venues, it is the City's intent to attract more
women and minorities to City employment opportunities.
In conclusion, the City Manager advised that the City has devised a sound
diversity strategy and is headed in the right direction, particularly in the area of
increasing diversity capacity; the City organization has not been as successful in
regard to hiring more minorities; however, this is a long term commitment that
requires constant attention, and attention and dedication will continue to be
provided which is required to make Roanoke a truly high quality diverse
employer.
Brenda Hale, 3595 Parkwood Drive, S. W., President, Roanoke Branch NAACP,
advised that four years ago, she offered an environment of collaboration in order to
work with the City to improve diversity in the City's workforce; whereupon, she
expressed appreciation to the City Manager for the City's efforts during that time.
She also expressed appreciation for a City administrative team that is not only
talented but diverse, including professionals and other key African-Americans in
higher level management positions. She commended the City Manager on
implementing continued diversity training programs, for fostering an environment
of inclusiveness, and for giving the City's Human Resources Department carte
blanche to further advance collaboration. She also commended the various
programs designed for Roanoke's youth and intern programs that have proven to
be successful with a high degree of African-American participation. She called
attention to areas in need of improvement in public safety (Fire, Police and Sheriff's
departments) which remain under represented by minorities. She stated that the
NAACP remains steadfast in its efforts to make a difference and looks forward to
the fourth annual Recruitment Day on Saturday, May 1, 2004, from 9:00 a.m. to
12:00 p.m., at the Roanoke Civic Center; great progress has been made in the
City's Employee Development Program which provides an excellent venue for
current City employees to advance in their jobs; and the City Manager should be
commended on implementation of an internal leadership diversity advisory group
that will lead to more opportunities to increase the recruitment of women and
minorities in key City positions; and Bennett College which is located in
Greensboro, North Carolina, is excited about future recruiting opportunities that
will be made available to this historic black women's college. She noted that the
Local Chapter of the NAACP remains steadfast in its commitment and looks forward
to the day when a true reflection will include the more than 70 nations that are
represented in the City of Roanoke.
Council Member Wyatt advised that when she began her service on Council
ten years ago, one of her major concerns was the lack of female firefighters and
very few police women, none of whom held rank in their departments. She called
attention to progress in the Police Department which now has atotal of 16 women,
both black and white, who have joined the rank and file, but only seven women
have received promotions in the Fire Department. She stated that she has been
advised that standards in the Fire Department have changed and it is almost
impossible for a woman to pass the test for promotion. If that statement is true,
she expressed concern that the City is taking a step backward and requested that
the City Manager determine if the standards for promotion within the Fire
Department have been changed.
Council Member Bestpitch expressed appreciation to Ms. Hale for the
cooperation and involvement of the Roanoke Chapter NAACP during her tenure as
President. He advised that the ownershipofthisinitiativemustbelargerthanthe
City Manager, City officials and City staff and must involve ownership by the total
community in order to be successful. He stated that it is only through the
continued involvement and support of organizations like the Roanoke NAACP that
the City will be successful in its recruiting efforts, because the issue must be
addressed at the entry level within certain City departments, and if people of color
and other minorities do not get the message that they are wanted, that they are
encouraged to apply for City positions and to be part of the City work force, they
will not apply.
Council Member Dowe concurred in the remarks of Ms. Hale and Mr.
Bestpitch and advised that he is personally encouraged by the present direction of
the City. He stated that he could not remember a time when there was as much
diversification at the top level of senior leadership, and he is encouraged by the
continued conscientious efforts displayed by City leadership in regard to
employment and diversity. He expressed concern that in Roanoke, as in other parts
of the country, there is a tendency to focus on two different races; i.e.: white males
versus black males in management positions which is approximately 82 per cent to
ten per cent, however, in service and maintenance areas, the percentage is closer
to 46 - 41 per cent. He asked that the City continue its efforts to cause the
discrepancy to be closer, continue to look for quality people, and to look outside
the two genres of black and white.
Dr. Cutler expressed appreciation to the City Manager for her leadership and
to Ms. Hale for her positive attitude and support as President of the Roanoke
NAACP. He inquired as to what extent the Roanoke City School System and the City
of Roanoke have worked together to encourage minority students in the City's
school system to seek employment with the City of Roanoke upon graduation from
high school or college; i.e.: through internships and/or cooperative education
programs.
The City Manager responded that young people in the City's School System
have been encouraged to participate in the City's Internship Program, the goal of
which is to link them psychologically to the City of Roanoke so that when they
graduate from college, they will consider employment with the City, or in local
government in general, because there is a need to attract the best and the
brightest to public service and to expose young people to public service careers.
She stated that a better job should be done to advise young people of the kinds of
careers that are available in the Roanoke community, not just through local
government, but through local businesses as well; and the City is working through
its Economic Development Department with School officials and others to create
mentorships at a much younger age so that young people will be aware of future
employment opportunities in the Roanoke area.
Vice-Mayor Harris echoed the remarks of Council Member Dowe that the
City is moving in the right direction. He expressed appreciation to Ms. Powell for
her leadership as President of the Roanoke Branch of the NAACP and commended
what has been a positive and cooperative relationship with Council during her
tenure as President. He stated that the spirit of cooperation has allowed the City
of Roanoke to move forward on this issue and to successfully address other
challenges.
Mr. Bestpitch moved that the communication be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and unanimously adopted.
ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION:
BUDGET-ENTERPRISE ZONE: The City Manager submitted a communication
advising that in January 1996, the Commonwealth of Virginia designated an area
within the City of Roanoke as an Enterprise Zone, which zone will expire on
December 31, 2015, and is known as Enterprise Zone Two.
It was further advised that a requirement of designation is that the City of
Roanoke will offer certain local incentives, which were set forth in the original
application and subsequent amendments approved by Council; when the zone
was originally designated in ].996, Council appropriated funds for local
incentives for both Enterprise Zone One (designated in ].984 and expired on
December 31, 2003) and Enterprise Zone Two; funds are about to be depleted
39
and in order for the City to continue to offer local incentives as set forth in the
designation application and subsequent amendments, additional funds need to
be appropriated; and the Department of Economic Development has estimated
the short-term (three to six months) funding need at approximately
$98,000.00.
The City Manager recommended that Council transfer $63,563.00 from
Capital Improvement Reserve Economic Development Account No. 008-530-
9575-9].78 and appropriate $34,370.00 from Capital Fund Interest Earnings
Account No. 008-3325, to Enterprise Zones ]. and 2 for utility connection
rebates in Account No. 008 310 9630 9003.
Mr. Cutler offered the following budget ordinance:
(#36649-040504) AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding for the
Enterprise Zone Fund, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2003-
2004 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations and dispensing with the second
reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68.)
Mr. Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36649-040504. 'The
motion was seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick,
and Mayor Smith .................................................... 7.
NAYS: None ................................................... 0.
BUDGET-NEWSPAPERS-STREETS AND ALLEYS: The City Manager submitted a
communication advising that there was a need by The/~oano/~e Tirnesto replace
curb and sidewalk as a part of the construction of its new building; the City
agreed to include the curb and sidewalk replacements as a part of the Salem
Avenue Streetscape project; in return, The Roano/~e T/mes agreed to reimburse
the City for its share of construction costs; and the City has received a check in
the amount of $3].,700.00 from The t?oano/~e T/mes for its share of the project.
The City Manager recommended that Council appropriate $3].,700.00,
representing repayment by The t?oano/~e T/mes to Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk,
Account No. 008-530-9804-9004, and establish a revenue estimate of
$3].,700.00 in the Capital Projects Fund.
40
Mr. Fitzpatrick offered the following budget ordinance:
(#36650-040504) AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding received from a
third party for the Salem Avenue streetscape project, amending and reordaining
certain sections of the 2003-2004 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, and
dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68.)
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36650-040504. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick,
and Mayor Smith .................................................... 7.
NAYS: None .................................................... O.
PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-POLICE DEPARTMENT-BUDGET: The City
Manager submitted a communication advising that construction on the Police
Building Phase II project is scheduled to begin during the summer of 2004; due
to the small size of the site, it is necessary to obtain temporary construction
easements of variable width from three adjacent property owners, which
easements are needed in order to construct a three story structure at the west
property line, to include layback for building foundation, and to provide space
for a crane and materials Fay-down to the south; and temporary closure of the
alley immediately behind the Police Building site is also required.
It was further advised that authorization is needed to move forward with
acquisition of the necessary property rights in the form of temporary
construction easements on four parcels identified as Official Tax Nos. 10].].304
owned by Campbell Place, LLC; ].0].].3].9, ].0].].320 owned by Roy H. Park
Broadcasting of Roanoke; and ].0].].335 owned by the American National Red
Cross.
It was explained that total acquisition costs for related expenses such as
title reports, environmental inspections, and alternative parking locations are
estimated to be $45,000.00; funding from Fire/EMS Facility Improvements
maybe transferred to cover the expenses, and the Fire/EMS Facility
Improvements account will be reimbursed from the proceeds of bonds to be
issued in fiscal year 2005 for Phase II of the Police Building project.
4!
The City Manager recommended that Council take the following actions:
Authorize the City Manager to acquire all property rights as above
described, subject to an acceptable environmental inspection and title
report; such property rights may be acquired by negotiation and include
temporary construction easements only.
Transfer $45,000.00 from Account No. 008-530-9678-9003 Fire/EMS
Facility Improvements to the Police Building Design-Ph. II, Account No.
008-530-9567-9003.
Adopt a resolution declaring the City's intent to reimburse itself from
the proceeds of general obligation public improvement bonds to be
issued for the project, the total amount of the bonds to be issued is
anticipated to be $6.67 million.
Mr. Cutler offered the following budget ordinance:
(#36651-040504) AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding for the Police
Phase II Project, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2003-2004
Capital Projects Fund Appropriations and dispensing with the second reading by
title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68.)
Mr. Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36651-040504. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick,
and Mayor Smith ..................................................... 7.
NAYS: None .................................................... 0.
Mr. Harris offered the following ordinance:
(#36652-040504) AN ORDINANCE providing for the acquisition of certain
temporary construction easements needed by the City for the construction of the Police
Building Phase II Project, providing for the City's acquisition of such easements by
negotiation; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68.)
42
Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36652-040504. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, and
Mayor Smith ............................................................. 7.
NAYS: None ....................................................... 0.
Mr. Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution:
(#36653-040504) A RESOLUTION declaring the City's intent to reimburse itself
from the proceeds of its general obligation public improvement bonds for certain
moneys to be appropriated by the City for expenditures in connection with the Police
Building Phase II Project; and providing for an effective date.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68.)
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36653-040504. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, and
Mayor Smith ............................................................. 7.
NAYS: None ...................................................... 0.
WATER RESOURCES-FEE COMPENDIUM: The City Manager submitted a
communication advising that currently, City water system customers, through water
billings, pay the majority of operational costs to maintain the recreational facilities at
the Carvins Cove Natural Reserve (Reserve); this funding commitment was recognized
by Council when it adopted a two tier user fee system for non-boating activities,
providing City residents a lower rate to access the Reserve; and user fees do not
replace operational funding, but have allowed the Departments of Parks and Recreation
and Utilities to make capital improvements that would not otherwise have occurred
without impacts to water rates.
It was further advised that with the creation of the Western Virginia Water
Authority, customers of Roanoke County's water system will also assume operational
costs not funded by user fees; and it is appropriate to modify the user fee structure to
provide member residents of the Western Virginia Water Authority with access to the
Reserve through the lower tier rate.
The City Manager recommended that Council adopt a resolution amending the
City's Fee Compendium to reflect changes to the Boat Rentals and User Fees at Carvins
Cove, effective April 15, 2004.
43
Mr. Dowe offered the following resolution:
(#36654-040504) A RESOLUTION amending certain fees and charges in
connection with use of Carvins Cove Natural Reserve, amending the Fee Compendium;
and providing for an effective date.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36654-040504. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Cutler.
Mr. Cutler advised that on or about July 1, 2004, which is the target date for
establishment of the Western Virginia Water Authority, a boundary will be drawn on
ownership maps at Carvins Cove between that part of the property essential to the
water supply function including the reservoir and pipelines, the treatment plant and the
buffer around the reservoir that will revert to the Water Authority; and the balance of
the almost 13,000 acre area of the Carvins Cove Natural Reserve will remain in the
ownership and responsibility of the City of Roanoke, and will be treated as a
recreational facility, the number one concern being the purity of the water that runs
into the water supply reservoir. In summary, he stated that boating will become a
responsibility of the Western Virginia Water Authority and recreation and the uplands
will continue to be a responsibility of the City of Roanoke.
Resolution No. 36654-040504 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick,
and Mayor Smith ...................................................... 7.
NAYS: None ................................................... 0.
ASBESTOS REMOVAL-COMMONWEALTH BUILDING: The City Manager submitted a
communication advising that in an effort to streamline the procurement of asbestos
and lead abatement services for various City departments, a one year Asbestos and
Lead Abatement Services contract was executed between the City of Roanoke and
Waco, Inc., of Christiansburg, Virginia, dated November 26, 2003, in accordance with
the City's advertising and procurement procedures; and total fee for the initial contract
was an amount not to exceed $100,000.00 based on the expected need at that time
for such services.
It was further advised that due to the number of requests by City departments to
have asbestos and/or lead abatement activities performed under the contract, the
$100,000.00 amount was exceeded; as a result, Amendment No. ! to the Asbestos
and Lead Abatement Services contract was administratively executed in February 2004
to increase the contract amount by $50,000.00.
44
It was explained that demand for abatement services under the existing contract
continues; in order to continue to meet the needs of City departments for upcoming,
as well as unanticipated abatement projects, it is requested that Amendment No. 2 to
the contract be approved to increase the contract amount by an additional $75,000.00;
approval is required by Council since the amount of Amendment No. 2, combined with
Amendment No. 1, exceeds $50,000.00 in changes from the original contract amount;
and funding for Amendment No. 2 is available through various City operating accounts
determined by the department requesting abatement services.
The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute Amendment
No. 2, in the amount of $75,000.00 with Waco, Inc., for the above described work, in a
form to be approved by the City Attorney.
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
(#36655-040504) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager's issuance and
execution of Amendment No. 2 to the City's contract with Waco, Inc., for asbestos and
lead abatement services; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this
ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36655-040504. The motion was
seconded by Ms. Wyatt and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, and
Mayor Smith ............................................................. 7.
NAYS: None ........................................................ 0.
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY EMPLOYEES-VALLEY VIEW MALL: The City Attorney submitted a written
report advising that the City of Roanoke plans to sponsor Citizen Appreciation Day at
Valley View Mall on April i7, 2004; the new owners of the mall, CBL & Associates
Management, Inc., require that the City execute an agreement in order to use the mall;
the agreement contains a provision which requires that the City agree to indemnify
and hold harmless CBL, and to defend it, in the event that anyone is injured or
anything is damaged during the City's use of the premises; only Council can waive the
City's sovereign immunity and agree to such provision; and CBL has refused to delete
the provision.
The City Attorney transmitted a resolution for consideration by Council which
authorizes the waiving of the City's sovereign immunity, and authorizes the City
Manager to execute the agreement.
45
Mr. Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution:
(#36656-040504) A RESOLUTION authorizing the waiver of the City's sovereign
immunity in connection with the City's use of ValleyView Mall for Citizen Appreciation
Day, and authorizing execution of an agreement with Valley View Mall, LLC, through its
agent, CBL Associates Management, Inc., in connection with such use of Valley View
Mall.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68.)
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36656-040504. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, and
Mayor Smith ........................................................... 7.
NAYS: None ...................................................... 0.
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE:
AUDITS/FINANCIAL REPORTS: The Director of Finance submitted the Financial
Report for the month of February 2004.
Clarification was requested by the Director of Finance in regard to a statement
that several one time collections totaling approximately $300,000.00 were received
which resulted from a State tax audit conducted during the current fiscal year that
revealed under payment of prior year sales taxes.
The Director of Finance advised that the City of Roanoke receives an annual
report from the State which details the amount of sales taxes that companies within the
City are required to remit to the State, of which the City of Roanoke receives a one per
cent share; it was discovered that a local company was not included in the report
because the company had changed ownership; the matter was pursued at the State
level and it was discovered that the State remitted the funds to the wrong locality.
Clarification was also requested in regard to a $51,000.00 one time collection as
a result of a cellular telephone tax audit; whereupon, the Director of Finance advised
that the Department of Billings and Collections is responsible for administering the
cellular phone tax; because of the geographical layout of the Roanoke Valley, if a
customer lives on the border of a locality, it is difficult to determine which locality, the
customer resides in; considerable time was spent with several cellular phone
companies to determine residency status of customers; and the $51,000.00 represents
the third significant collection by the City of Roanoke from cell phone companies that
were previously paying the tax to the wrong locality.
46
Council Member Cutler made the observation that it appears that business at the
Roanoke Civic Center is increasing when looking at the overall revenue picture;
whereupon, the Director of Finance advised that Civic Center staff has worked diligently
to deposit gross profits from Civic Center events into the City's General Fund in a more
timely manner.
Without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that the Financial Report for the
month of February, 2004 would be received and filed.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: NONE.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
NONE.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
INQUIRIES AND/OR COMMENTS BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL:
ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT-CITY COUNCIL-HOCKEY: Council formally
commended the Roanoke Express hockey team upon placing number two in the East
Coast Hockey League Division.
ELECTIONS-REGISTRAR: Vice-Mayor Harris requested that the City Manager, in
consultation with the Registrar, provide Council with either an oral briefing or awritten
report, in regard to the new touch screen voting machines which are proposed to be
used in the May 4, 2004 local election.
Vice-Mayor Harris advised that the Members of Council have received
correspondence from citizens who are concerned about the touch screen machines due
to the experiences of other localities throughout the country, and citizens need some
assurance by the Registrar that the machines have been certified, tested, and that
Officers of Election have been properly trained on the use of the new equipment.
The City Manager advised that atouch screen voting machine will be available for
demonstration purposes during Citizens Appreciation Day on Saturday, April 17, 2004,
at Valley View Mall and the Office of Communications will be requested to work with
the Registrar to identify other opportunities to showcase the new voting machines to
Roanoke's citizens.
The Mayor suggested a hands on demonstration of the new equipment at a future
Council meeting.
47
Council Member Bestpitch made the observation that the system recommended
by the Electoral Board for use by the City of Roanoke is a different system than that
which is used by Roanoke County and if the two localities use the same type of voting
equipment, they could come to the assistance of each other when necessary.
ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT-WATER RESOURCES: Council Member Cutler
commended participants from the Appalachian Trail Club, Pathfinders for Greenways,
and members of the Roanoke ValleyGreenways Commission who volunteered their time
to construct a new bridge across the stream at Carvins Cove Natural Reserve.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: The Mayor advised that Council
sets this time as a priority for citizens to be heard and matters requiring referral to the
City Manager will be referred immediately for response, recommendation or report to
Council.
ELECTIONS-CITY MANAGER-REGISTRAR-COMMUNITY PLANNING: Mr. Chris Craft,
1501 East Gate Avenue, N. E., expressed appreciation to Council Member Bestpitch for
recommending that the City Planning Commission study the renaming of that portion
of 13'h Street south of Orange Avenue, "Thomas Market Street", in recognition of the
contributions of the Thomas family. He advised that a touch screen voting machine is
on display in the Registrar's Office and Officers of Election will be available at each
polling place to assist voters at the local election on May 4. He commended the City
Manager for addressing issues of concern to the East Gate community.
ELECTIONS-COMPLAINTS-ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD: Mr. E. Duane Howard,
508B Walnut Avenue, S. W., advised that inasmuch as the newvoting machines have not
been tested at this time, he would strongly encourage the City to use the old voting
machines in the May 4, 2004 Councilmanic election. He also spoke in regard to a
suggestion which was made by Vice-Mayor Harris earlier in the day during a meeting of
the Budget and Planning Committee that the matter of funding a $1,200.00 per annum
stipend for members of the Architectural Review Board be referred to fiscal year 2005
budget study. He expressed concern that two members of the same family currently
serve on the Architectural Review Board and the Board of Zoning Appeals which is a
conflict of interest, and stated that if Council approves a stipend for Architectural
Review Board members, it should be based on the provision that the stipend will apply
to future members of the Architectural Review Board and that no current member of the
Board will be entitled to receive the annual stipend.
48
Y.W.C.A.- HARRISON HERITAGE CENTER-SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION-
HENRY STREET REVIVAL COMMITTEE: Ms. Helen E. Davis, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E.,
expressed concern in regard to rumors that:
· A four story Social Security Administration building will be located
on Henry Street;
The Harrison Museum of African American Culture will be relocated
to the Henry Street area and plans include construction of a building
adjacent to the Dumas Hotel; and
· The Orange Avenue YMCA will be closed, and, if so, what is the
future status of the building.
COMMITTEES-SCHOOLS: Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., requested
that the public hearing and interview of School Trustees be conducted in public Council
session. The Mayor advised that Council will hold a public hearing on Monday, April
].9, 2004, at 7:00 p.m., to receive the views of citizens on School Board applicants and
public interviews will be conducted on Thursday, April 22, 2004, at 4:30 p.m., in the
City Council Chamber, and will be open to the public.
COMPLAINTS-CITY EMPLOYEES-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Robert E. Gravely,
729 Loudon Avenue, N. W., expressed concern in regard to the use of taxpayers'
dollars as incentives for businesses to locate and/or relocate to the City of Roanoke.
He called attention to Iow wages for those employees at the bottom of the City's pay
scale, a lack of opportunities for promotion at the lower end of the City's pay scale, and
the lack of businesses in the minority community and in the City of Roanoke in general
that promote the African American culture.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
BUDGET-ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT-LEGISLATiON: The City Manager
presented information prepared by Thomas A. Dick, the City's Legislative Liaison, in
connection with various State budget proposals as they relate to the availability of local
funds for the City of Roanoke. She called attention to a public forum which will be held
on Tuesday, April 6, 2004, at 7:00 p.m., in the Auditorium at William Fleming High
School, at which time citizen comments will be invited in regard to the lack of a State
budget at the present time, and with regard to which budget proposals (The House or
Senate versions) that appear to provide the greatest benefit to the Roanoke community.
She encouraged those citizens in attendance to urge the Virginia General Assembly to
adopt a two year biennial budget.
49
The City Manager advised that the City of Roanoke will be recognized as one of
America's Most Liveable Communities at an event to be held on Tuesday, April 20,
2004, at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. She explained that the award is
presented to five small cities in the United States by Partners for Liveable Communities,
a non-profit organization, in recognition of those communities that are attempting to
develop their localities in a creative economy and taking major strides to prepare for
the new global economy. She stated that a special celebration will be held in the City
of Roanoke following the April 20 presentation.
At 3:50 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess for one Closed Session.
At 5:10 p.m., the meeting reconvened in the Council Chamber, with Mayor Smith
presiding and all Members of the Council in attendance.
COUNCIL: With respect to the Closed Meeting just concluded, Mr. Cutler moved
that each Member of City Council certify to the best of his or her knowledge that: (1)
only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements under
the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and (2) only such public business matters as
were identified in any motion by which any Closed Meeting was convened were heard,
discussed or considered by City Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harr s, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, and Mayor
Smith ...................................... 6
NAYS: None ......................................................... 0.
(Council Member Wyatt abstained from voting.)
COMMITTEES-HOUSING/AUTHORiTY: The Mayor advised that there is a vacancy on
the Fair Housing Board inasmuch as Brenda Powell has served three consecutive three
years terms of office and is ineligible to serve another term; whereupon, he opened the
floor for nominations to fill the vacancy.
Mr. Bestpitch placed in nomination the name of Rich G. McGimsey.
There being no further nominations, Mr. McGimseywas appointed as a member of
the Fair Housing Board for a term ending March 31, 2007, by the following vote:
FOR MR. MCGIMSEY: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe,
Fitzpatrick and Mayor Smith ............................... 7
$0
COMMITTEES-SCHOOLS: Mr. Bestpitch moved that Council extend the deadline
for receipt of applications for appointment to the Roanoke City School Board until
Monday, April 19, 2004 at 12:00 noon, with a public hearing to receive the views of
citizens on School Board applicants to be held at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, April 19, 2004;
following the public hearing, Council will select the persons to be accorded the formal
interview to be held on Thursday, April 22, 2004, at 4:30 p.m., in the City Council
Chamber; and Council will appoint two Trustees to the Roanoke City School Board at a
special meeting to be held on Thursday, May 13, 2004, at 2:00 p.m., in the City Council
Chamber. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted, Council Member Wyatt
abstained from voting.
There being no further business, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at
5:15 p.m.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
Mary F. Parker
City Clerk
Ralph K. Smith
Mayor
$!
RALPH K. SMITH
Mayor
CITY OF ROANOKE
CITY COUNCIL
215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853~1145
May 20, 2004
Council Members:
William D. Bestpitch
M. Rupert Cutler
Alfred T. Dowe, Jr.
Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr.
C. Nelson Harris
Linda E Wyatt
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of Council:
I wish to request a Closed Meeting to discuss the performance of three Council-Appointed
Officers, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
City Coun",~.P~rsonnel Committee
ATD:snh
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011 - 153 6
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
F~x: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk(~ci.roanoke.va.us
May 26, 2004
STEPHAN1E M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
File #79-380
David A. Diaz, President
Downtown Roanoke, Inc.
213 Market Street
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Dear Mr. Diaz:
A communication from the City Manager requesting that Council schedule
a public hearing for Monday, June 21, 2004, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon
thereafter as the matter may be heard, with regard to expansion of the
Downtown Service District, was before the Council of the City of Roanoke
at its regular meeting held on Thursday, May 20, 2004.
On motion, duly seconded and unanimously adopted, Council concurred
in the request.
Sincerely,
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
David A. Diaz
May 26, 2004
Page 2
pc:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community
Development
R. Brian Townsend, Director, Planning Building and Development
Elizabeth A. Neu, Director, Economic Development
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 364
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591
Telephone: (540) 853-2333
Fax: (540) 853-1138
CityWeb: www.roanokegov.com
May20,2004
Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Vice Mayor
Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member
Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council:
Subject: Scheduling of a Public
Hearing to Consider the
Expansion of the Downtown
Service District Boundaries
A Downtown Service District (DSD) was first established by City Council on
December 8, 1986, with an effective date of July 1, 1987. On May 28,
1991, City Council approved the expansion of the DSD to include the
boundaries that represent the DSD as it stands today. The Administration
has received a request from Downtown Roanoke Incorporated (DRI) for the
consideration of a further expansion of the district boundaries.
During 2003, DRI conducted a review of potential areas for further
expansion of the Special Services District. The process included evaluation
of the land uses and functions of these areas; review of the services and
benefits that would be provided by the Special Services District to these
areas; and meetings with property owners and business interests located
within these areas.
The area identified for the expansion is located to the west of the current
district, and is bounded by 5th Street on the east and 7'h Street on the west;
by Marshall Avenue on the south, and by the rear properties lines of
properties fronting on the north side of Campbell Avenue on the north.
Mayor Smith and Members of City Council
May 20, 2004
Page 2
Recommended Action:
City Council to authorize the scheduling of a public hearing for June 21,
2004 to consider the expansion of the Downtown Service District as
requested by Downtown Roanoke Incorporated.
DLB:bt
c'
City Manager
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Brian Townsend, Director of Planning Building and Development
CM04-00086
Downtown
Roanoke Inc.
213 Market Street · Roanoke, VA 24011 · 540*342.2028 · FAX 344.1452
ww~downtownroanoke.org · e-mail: dri@downtownroanoke, org
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
STEPHEN W. LEMON
Martin Hopkins & Lemon, PC
Chair
MICHAEL T. DITTFIICH
Pepsi Bollling Group
Chair-Elect
M. HELEN BUTLER
Coordinated Services Management
I/n/nediate Past-Chair
G. LOGAN FORSYTH
Chis Lunsford Sons & Associates
Secretary
MICHAEL R, RIELEY
Verizon
SABREN~ BLEVINS
The WallaCe Agency
Vice Chair
ROBERT H. FETZER
KENNETH RATi'ENSURY
Fret Mil~ Music Company
V/ce-Chair
MICHAEL WALDVOGEL
Waldvogel Poe & Cronk
Vice-Chair
DENNIS TRAUBERT
At Large
MICHAEL E. WARNER
N & W Investments LLC
At Large
DAVID A. DIAZ
DIRECTORS
MARK BOWER
CYNTHIA E. CASSELL
GARY CROWDER
LARRY DAVlDSON
May 14,2002
Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Vice-Mayor
Honorable William D. Bestpitch
Honorable M. Rupert Cutler
Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr.
Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr.
Honorable Linda F. Wyatt
Subject:
Request for Public Hearing to Consider the Expansion
of the Downtown Service District Boundaries
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council:
Background:
On October 14, 1986, Downtown Roanoke Incorporated (DRI)
submitted a formal proposal to City Council for the creation of a
Downtown Service District (DSD). The initial DSD was established
by Ordinance No. 28453, adopted by City council on December 8,
1986, with an effective date of July 1, 1987.
In 1991, DRI went through a similar process to request an
expansion of the DSD. After holding several meetings with senior
staff members of the City of Roanoke and soliciting support from
the community it serves, on April 25, 1991, DRI successfully
petitioned City Council for its concurrence and requested City
Council to conduct a public hearing to such an expansion. On May
28, 1991, by Ordinance No. 30523-52891, City Council approved
the expansion of the DSD to include the boundaries that represent
the DSD as it stands today at a taxation rate of 10 cents for every
$100 of assessed value for each parcel. The proposed expansion
recommends the same rate and does not recommend any changes
to the tax rate of the existing district.
During 2003, DRI conducted a review of potential areas for further
BENJAMIN MOTLEY
Rodr,~ua~,R~p,ey, Uadd.x, Mo,.yA~ohd~sexpansion of the Special Services District, looking at a number of
CALVIN POWERS
Guard Rail Inc.
SHEILA STUEWE
Advance Auto parts
BUD THOMPSON
Carillon Health System
BRIAN TOWNSEND
City of Roanoke
MARK W. WOODS
Woods Farms
EDWIN C. HALL
Ex-Officio Member
Hall Associates
ALFRED DOWE
Roanoke C~ty Council Liaison
alternatives including areas to the north, south, and west of the
current district boundaries. The process included evaluation of the
land uses and functions of these areas; review of the services and
benefits that would be provided by the Special Services District to
these areas; and meetings with property owners and business
interests located within these areas.
Greater
Roanoke
Region
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
DRI - Request for Public Hearing
Page 2
Areas to the north of the existing boundaries, along the Williamson Road corridor
and to the northeast of the existing boundaries up to the Orange Avenue corridor
did not exhibit a land use or functional pattern that would be a logical or
beneficial extension of the current district.
To the south, along the Jefferson Avenue corridor, while the land use and
functional pattern does exhibit a relationship to the current district boundaries
along the Elm Avenue corridor, it was determined that further expansion of the
district boundaries at this time was not appropriate. It is anticipated that as the
Jefferson Avenue corridor continues to redevelop in a southwardly direction to
the proposed Bio-Medical Research Park project, this area will be more
appropriate for consideration for future district expansion.
To the west of the current district boundaries, the development pattern along the
Church Avenue corridor (the Jefferson Center area), west from Fifth Street to
Seventh Street does exhibit a functional and land use relationship to the existing
district. During the last several months, Downtown Roanoke Incorporated (DRI)
has been actively seeking comment from property owners in regards to the
expansion of the Downtown Service District boundaries to include this additional
area extending from 5th Street on the east to 7th Street on the west; Marshall
Avenue on the south to the rear properties lines of properties fronting on the
north side of Campbell Avenue on the north.
DRI has received overwhelming support from property owners in the existing and
proposed district in support of our request to expand the current service district
(see Attachment D containing letters of support). It is estimated that
approximately $3,000 in revenues will be generated by the portion being
proposed for inclusion in the service district.
On May 4, 2004, the Board of Directors of DRI voted to support proposing the
expansion to City Council for its consideration.
Considerations:
Section 15.2-240 of the Code of Virginia (1950) as amended, governs the
creation of a service district by ordinance. That section authorizes a locality to
create by ordinance, services districts to provide additional or more complete or
timely services of government than are desired by the locality as a whole. Before
a service district can be created and/or expanded, a public hearing must be held.
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
DRI - Request for Public Hearing
Page 3
Action Required:
After corresponding with senior members of City staff, we are now petitioning
City Council for its concurrence with our request. Specifically, we request that a
public hearing be set for June 21, 2004 to consider the expansion of the
Downtown Service District. It is our hope that by designating this date, it will
enable the City Clerk ample time to provide the necessary notice to the general
public.
Attached for your review and information is:
· A narrative description and map identifying the additional portion of the
downtown area to be included in the expanded service district (Attachments A
and B); and
· , A description of the facilities, services, and benefits to be offered within the
expanded area (Attachment C).
~ A signed letter by 13 of the 25 property owners in the proposed expansion
area pledging their support (Attachment D).
Thank you for your consideration and continuing support of our downtown
development effort. Our organization and the businesses located in downtown
Roanoke appreciate your support.
Attachments
C:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Elizabeth Neu, Director of Economic Development
Attachment A
PROPOSED DOWNTOWN SERVICE DISTRICT
The proposed expansion would include the existing area of the current Special
Service District as well as property bordering the western boundary of the current
district, which begins on Fifth Street. The proposed western boundary would
extend two blocks to Seventh Street. The northern boundary would be the rear
property line of Campbell Avenue properties from fifth to seventh streets. The
southern boundary would be Marshall Avenue, which is the same southern
boundary for the western part of the existing downtown district.
Attachment B
PROPOSED DOWNTOWN SERVICE DISTRICT - MAP
Attachment C
PROPOSED DOWNTOWN SERVICE DISTRICT
Our Vision:
Downtown Roanoke Incorporated (DRI) will strive to make the downtown a 24-
hour center of activity for all ages to visit, work, live and have fun.
Our Mission:
Downtown Roanoke Incorporated, a nonprofit organization, exists to attract,
retain and expand the number of businesses, visitors, and residents in the
downtown area by facilitating public/private partnerships, marketing the
downtown area, coordinating the delivery of government services, and managing
the Farmer's Market on behalf of more than 700 property and business owners.
Public/Private Partnerships - DRI has a long history of making significant
contributions to the downtown by facilitating partnerships among private
companies, government and community agencies. For example, DRI, in
partnership with the Roanoke Foundation for the Downtown, the City of
Roanoke, and the Roanoke Redevelopment & Housing Authority, developed
S. Jefferson Place, an apartment complex with 87 luxury apartments. DRI
also manages the City-owned, Historic Farmer's Market, which provides so
much of the charm and vitality often associated with our downtown.
Marketing - DRI works with business to provide new programs that showcase
the downtown as a wonderful place to work, shop live, visit, and have fun.
For example, two popular programs include the Art by Night Gallery Walk, a
tour of the downtown Art Gallery's after five, and a Downtown Living Tour
highlighting the many magnificent downtown apartment dwellings, from the
small to the large. Other areas of marketing the downtown include production
of materials that reinforce all he amenities in the downtown and working with
the local media on "happenings" in the downtown.
Marketing efforts also include the development of an Internet website
address, at www.downtownroanoke.or,q, at which, members, visitors,
residents, and businesses can review information concerning events,
attractions, shopping, dining, accommodations, downtown plans, real estate,
maps, etc.
Economic Development - DRI provides leadership for Downtown by assisting
current and prospective businesses in identifying available space and other
resources for expansion or relocation to downtown. Examples include the
sale or donation of two buildings that now house the Higher Education
Center, a unique and innovative workforce development "laboratory"
encompassing more than 18 educational constitutions, and S. Jefferson
Place, an 87 unit luxury apartment complex. DRI jointed forces with the City
of Roanoke to develop Outlook Roanoke Update, Downtown's Master Plan,
which includes an e-town initiative designed to enhance the presence of
software firms in the downtown through the redevelopment of several
warehouses.
Events - DRI hosts a variety of events and provides support and guidance to
other organizations producing special events in the downtown. Our premier
event "Dickens of a Christmas" provides family fun and excitement for
thousands over three Friday nights in December. Other major efforts have
included the recruitment of the Easter Seals Concert Series, which will hold
19 concerts in downtown's Elmwood Park from May through September, and
a joint effort with the City of Roanoke to bring "Outdoor Movies" to downtown.
Clean and Safe Environment - To keep the downtown clean, safe, and
attractive for persons working, visiting, and living in the downtown is essential
for its success. To accomplish this objective, DRI works with the Roanoke
Police Department, businesses and other City service organizations to
provide assistance and support. Some of our major projects have included
the formulation of the Mounted Patrol, the provision of a sidewalk-cleaning
machine, and the hanging of holiday greenery.
Ouz: 2'uzzc~_'i on,~:
· Economic Development:
Business Retention - Business retention efforts are aimed at keeping
existing businesses and, where appropriate, encouraging expansion within
the downtown area. Toward this effort, personal contacts are made to
ascertain satisfaction levels and determine problems or needs, then
addressing them either through private sector incentives (i.e., loan pools)
or by acting as liaison between business and appropriate governmental
agencies.
Business Recruitment - Business recruitment efforts are multi-faceted.
The geographic target area must be determined by governing body and
should be oriented toward office and commercial businesses targeted
either as likely candidates for a move or as needed to fill identified voids in
our tenant mix. Efforts involve research, the development of marketing
tools (i.e., brochures and audio-visual presentations which not only extol
our assets but contain hard data) and the matching of prospects with
buildings and sites.
Developer Recruitment - Developer recruitment efforts involve identifying
the securing developers capable of carrying out projects (office,
commercial, residential, etc.) deemed necessary to the continued growth
of downtown.
· Manaqement:
Planning - Planning efforts include general "development plan updates",
as well as more specific studies involving downtown's various functions
(i.e., retail development, housing) or detailed plans for specific areas such
S. Jefferson Street and 3rd to 5th Street area). In May 2002, DRI updated
its downtown master plan called OUTLOOK ROANOKE UPDATE, a plan
that will set the direction for development efforts in the coming years. This
plan was officially adopted by City Council on May 20, 2002.
Most efforts are done in conjunction with the City of Roanoke but some,
like marketing surveys and plans, are the sole province of the
organization. Efforts emphasize implementation strategies. This function
also involves representation in the design review process.
Retail Management - Retail management efforts concentrate on one
segment of our constituency. The main function involves marketing
downtown as a single retail unit through image-building advertising and
sales promotions directed at targeted markets. Other efforts may include
coordinating store hours educational seminars (on marketing, security,
etc.).
Transportation Manaqement - Transportation management efforts include
assuming a more active role in traffic, transit and parking issues.
Particular functions include working with Valley Metro on various shuttle
services and a parking validation system.
Public Space Manaqement - Public spaces refer primarily to parks and
plazas and, to a lesser degree, to streets and sidewalks. Management
activities are geared toward enhancing the utilization and appearance of
these spaces. Examples of these activities may include the development
and administration of a street-vendor program, the provision of supervision
of functional amenities such as information kiosks and outdoor cafb-type
tables and chairs, the development of a unified signage program guiding
visitors to downtown attractions and parking facilities, the provision of
informal noontime entertainment, the development of a much stronger
program of seasonal decorations and lamp post banners, and the
development of specific capital improvements.
· Community Relations:
Advocacy - In essence, DRI acts as the "voice" of downtown. DRI works
in partnership with downtown property owners businesses, merchants,
other non-profits, and the government to identify needs, develop
strategies, shape public policy, and implement programs to strengthen the
economic vitality of the downtown area and its role within the region as the
urban center of western Virginia. Activities include establishing
constituency positions on matters affecting that constituency and
conveying those positions to appropriate decision-makers.
Public Relations - Public relations efforts include presenting downtown as
a unit in an effort to influence perceptions - and may include general
image building or a focused approach on a specific issue.
Government Liaison - DRI serves as a liaison to local government,
fostering communications and cooperation between the public and private
sectors on specific issues.
Information and Referral - DRI serves as a clearinghouse - both for the
dissemination of information of interest to a constituency and the referral
of inquiries to appropriate agencies including sub-functions of education,
disaster assistance, and maintenance of a data base.
Other Services:
DRI members join Downtown Roanoke to invest in one of the region's most
important businesses - theirs! Membership in Downtown Roanoke Incorporated
keeps them informed on issues involving the downtown community. It enables
their company and its employees to joint other national corporations, small,
locally owned businesses, civic organizations, government agencies, property
owners, and arts and cultural institutions in shaping Downtown Roanoke as the
vital urban core of the Roanoke Region. Benefits of becoming a member
include:
· Listing on the DRI website;
· Link for Members Only on website;
· Copy of ADVOCATE - a bi-monthly newsletter to keep them up to date on
downtown development and happenings;
· One free flyer insertion in the bi-monthly Advocate newsletter;
· Broadcast Fax Initiative, which allows them to fax important information about
their business to all downtown businesses;
· Members are allowed to utilize DRI's meeting room on a limited basis free of
charge;
· Invitation to DRI's annual meeting;
Attachment D
LETTERS OF SUPPORT
Downtown
Roanoke Inc.
213 Market Street · Roanoke, VA 24011 ° 540.342~2028. FAX 344.1452
vvw~.downtovmroanoke, c~g ° e-mail: dd @dovetownmanoke. org
Dear Board of Directors of Downtown Roanoke, Incorporated:
I would like to pledge my support for the current efforts by Downtown
Roanoke, Inc. (DRI) to expand the service distdct boundaries. As a
downtown property owner, I support the expansion and wish to have my
properties (Tax ID: 1113305, 1113501, 1113502, 1113312, 1113313,
1113314. 1113315, 1113316, 1113518. 1113519, 1113520. 1113521,
1113522, 1113523, 1113525, 1113426, 1112527, 11135281 1113529,
1113530) included in the new distdct boundaries.
Over the years, DRI has made significant progress in realizing ils vision
of making the downtown a 24-hour center of activity for all ages to visit,
work, live and have Un. I want to support your mission of at, acting,
retaining and expending the number of businesses, visitors and
residents in the downtown.
Your efforts in facilitating public/private partnerships, marketing and
managing the Historic City Market have made downtown a safer and
more enjoyable place to be. Again, I support your efforts and request
you endorse the proposal for expanding the downtown service district
and present it to Roanoke City Council for their approval.
(ProlC~erty Owner[s] -I ~ print & sign)
1113305,1113501,1113502,1113312,1113313,1113314,1113315,
1113316, 1113518, 1113519, 1113520,1113521, 1113522, 1113523,
1113525, 1113426,1112527,1113528,1113529,1113530
City ldentification #s
(Date)
Downtown
Roanoke Inc.
213 Market Street o Roanoke, VA 24011 · 540-342,2028 · FAX 344-1452
www. dove3townroanoke, org · e-mail: dti@doaetownmanoke, or~
EXECUTIVE COMMI1TEE
Pepsi Bo~ling Group
SABREN~ BLEVlNS
At~elge
To the Board of Directors of Downtown Roanoke, Inc.:
I would like to pledge my support for the current efforts by Downtown
Roanoke, Inc. (DRI) to expand the service distdct boundaries. As a
downtown property owner, I support the expansion and wish to have my
property included in the new district boundaries.
Over the years, DRI has made significant progress in realizing its vision
of making the downtown a 24-hour center of activity for all ages to visit,
work, live and have fun. I want to support your mission of attracting,
retaining and expending the number of businesses, visitors and
residents in the downtown.
Your efforts in facilitating public/private partnerships, marketing and
managing the Historic City Market have made downtown a safer and
more enjoyable place to be. Again, I suPport your efforts and request
you endorse the proposal for expanding the downtown service district
and present it to Roanoke City Council for their approval.
/'::?-// II/ ./
(Pr~ Owoe~s]~fint & sign)'
(Address or Ci~ T~ identifi~t on .~) i
(D~te)
R~
Downtown
Roanoke Inc.
213 Matlcet Slree~ - Reanoke, VA24011 ° 540-342-20~B o FAX 344o1452
~.~.d0wrJa~,moanoke~j. e-e~/.- ~'~dow~MnrMr~.onj
To the Board of Directors of Downtown Roanoke, Inc.:
I would like to pledge my support for the Current efforts by Downtown
.Roanoke,'/nc. (DRI) to expand the serv/ce d/s~ct boundaries. As a
downtown properly Owner, I support the expansion and wish to have my
property included in the new district boundaries.
Over the years, DRI has made significant progress in realizing its vision
of making the downtown a 24-hour center of activity for all ages 1o visit,
work, live and have fun. I want to support your m/ssion of attracting,
retaining and expending the number of businesses, visitors and
residents in the downtown.
Your efforts in facilitating publictprivate partnerships, marketing and
managing the Historic City Market have made downtown a safer and
more enjoyable place to be. Again, I support your efforts and request
you endorse the proposal for expanding the downtown service district
and present it to Roanoke City Council for their approval.
(PrnF~NV C~-~e, is] - pfii-~[ & sign)
(Address or City Tax ider~'~ilon #) '
(Date)
To the Board of Directors of Downtown Roanoke, Inc.:
I would like to pledge my support for the current efforts by Downtown Roanoke,
Inc. to expand the service district boundaries. As a downtown property owner, I
support the expansion and wish to have my property included in the new district
boundaries.
Over the years, DRI has made significant progress in realizing its vision of
making the downtown a 24-hour center of activity for all ages to visit, work, live
and have fun. I want to support your mission of attracting, retaining and
expending the number of businesses, visitom and residents in the downtown.
Your efforts in facilitating public/private partnemhips, marketing and managing
the Histodc City Market have made downtown a safer and more enjoyable place
to be. Again, I support your efforts and request you endorse the proposal for
expanding the downtown service district and present it to Roanoke City Coundl
for their approval.
Sincerely,
~"-~'~'~ (Property Owner)
~-~' ~-'~'~'~ ,~'- ~/~(Business Address)
Downtown
Roanoke Inc.
213 Market Street · R~oP.e, VA 24011 · 540342,2028 · FAX 344-1452
www. downtown/oanoke, org · e-mail: dd@dov~townmenoke.oq~
To the Board of Directors of Downtown Roanoke, Inc.:
I would like to pledge my support for the current efforts by Downtown
Roanoke, inc. (DRI) to expand the service district boundaries. As a
downtown property owner, I support the expansion .and wish to have my
property included in the new district boundaries.
Over the years, DRI has made significant progress in realizing its vision
of making the downtown a 24-hour center of activity for all ages to visit,
work, live and have fun. I want to suppod your mission of attracting,
retaining and expending the number of businesses, visitors and
residents in the downtown.
Your effods in facilitating public/private partnerships, marketing and
managing the Historic City Market have made downtown a safer and
more enjoyable place to be. Again, I support your efforts and request
you endorse the proposal for expanding the downtown service district
and present it to Roanoke City Council for their~ ~
(Property Owner[s] - print & sign)
(Address or City Tax identification #)
(Date)
Downtown
Roanoke Inc.
213 Mark~ S~rt~ * Ro~noko. VA 24011 * ~40'31~2.2{~¢~l · FAX 344.1452
ww~down~mn~oke o~g · e.n~il: dr;(fdowntowmanok¢.o~
To the Board of Directors of Downtown Roanoke. Inc.:
I would like to pledge my support for the current efforts by Downtown
Roanoke, Inc. (DRI) to expand the service district boundaries As a
downtown property owner, I support the expansion and wish to have my
property included in lhe new d~stricl boundaries.
Over the years, DRI has made signiflcanl progress in realizing ils vision
of making the downtown a 24-hour center of activity for all ages to visit,
work, Five and have fun. I want to support your mission of atlracting,
retaining and expending the number of businesses, visitors and
residenls in the downtown.
Your efforts in facilitating public/private partnerships, marketing and
managing the Historic City Markel have made downtown a safer and
more enjoyable place to be. Again, I support your efforts and request
you endorse the proposal for expanding the downtown service district
and present it to Roanoke City Council for their approval.
(Property Owner[s] - pdnt & sign)
(Ad'di~ss or City Tax identification #)
Council of
Community Services
502 Campbell Ave., S.W. (24016)
EO. Box 598, Roanoke, VA 24004
(540) 985-0131
lax (ti'10) 982-2935
~vww. coundlo fcomraunit yservices.ot, g
ccsirL~noke.infi.nel
Presiden!
Morris Turner, Jr.
Vice Presidents
Charlotte Portedldd
E. Scott Austin
Margaret Mnrgn
Board of Directors
Reid W. Ammez
Louis O. grovm
M. Helen ~uder
~ W. Col~
W. $~bbins ~
Ann Miller
Jane O'Keelfe
Edward M. Smidt
Natalie Smith
l.ucas & Snipes
J~lge Diane S~4,+1.~
HenryJ. Sullivm~
W. lee Wilhelm, III
Executive Director
October 28, 2003
Mr. David A. Diaz
President
Downtown Roanoke, Inc.
213 Market Street
Roanoke, VA 24011
boundaries. As a downtown propen'y owns, the Council' s Board
SuppOI~ the e~pnn~n an~ WiShe~ tO Imve oor pt~ jn~ in the
YoUr efforts/n facilimfng lmblidpdvai~ pm'mershi~ merla~/ng and
managing the I-r~ofic ci~ lVIark~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~
more enjoyable place. A~in. we support your e/~orts and request flutt
DRI's Board of Directors endorse fl~e proposal f~r expending the
Calvary
Baptist
Church
DONNA HOPKINS BRITT, Pastor
608 CAMPt~ELL AVENUE, S.\V.
ROANOI~E, VIRGINIA 24016
(540) 344-9237 ° FAX (540) 982-I.389
w~:calvav/roanoke.org
October 16, 2003
Downtown Roanoke, Inc.
cio David A. Diaz, President
213 Market Street
Roanoke, VA 24011
To the Directors of Downtown Roanoke, Inc.:
On behalf of Calvary Baptist Church, I would like to pledge om support for the efforts by DRI to
expand downtown's se~ice district boundaries. As a downtown property owner, we support the
exp~sinn and wish to have our property at 6~ Street and Campl~ Avenue, SW, included ~ the
new district boundaries.
Calvary is proud to be dose to downtown and we believe that our spiritual presence eariehes the
quality of life for those who five, work ami play in the downtown are~ The expan.~ion of the
boundaries would help us to do this in an even more proaoc~ive way.
Howeve~ we may help, please le~ us know. Meanwhile, know of my and our support for the
proposal to expand the downtown service district in hopes that you will present it to Roanoke
City Council for their approval.
May God bless and guide you.
Sincerely,
Donna Hopkins Britt
Jill D°wnt°wn
Roanoke Inc.
213 Market Street · Roanoke, V^ 24011 o 540-~ ° FAX 344-1452
wv,~.dov,'ntownroanoke, org · e-mail: dn'Odow~vmroanoke.org
To the Board of Directors of Downtown Roanoke, Inc.:
I would like to pledge my support for the current efforts by Downtown
Roanoke, Inc. (DRI) to expand the service distdct boundaries. As a
downtown property owner, I support the expansion and wish to have my
properties on Campbell Avenue (Tax ID: 1112415, 1112418) included in
the new district boundaries.
Over the years, DRI has made significant progress in realizing its vision
of making the downtown a 24-hour center of activity for all ages to visit,
work, live and have fun. I want to support your mission of attracting,
retaining and expending the number of businesses, visitors and
residents in the downtown.
Your efforts in facilitating public/private partnerships, man~eting and
managing the Histmic City Market have made downtown a safer and
more enjoyable place to be. ,a~ain, I support your efforts and request
you endorse the prolx)sal for expanding the downtown service district
and present it to Roanoke City Council for their approval.
(rfroperty Ownel~s~- print & sign) '
(Address or City Identification #)
(Date)
JEFFERSON CENTER
Enterrainingideas anti audiences
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
September 8, 2003
Downtown Romoke,/nc
213 l~'~rl~et Street
Roanoke, VA_ 24011
To the Board of Directors of Downtown Roanoke, [nc:
Jeffemon Center Foundation is pleased to support the cu~mt efforts by Downtown
R°~noke, Inc. to exlnmd the service ~strict boundaries. The Foundation wholeheaxtedly
suppoms the expansion and wishes to hsve J-fl~son Ce~te~included ~th;, the new
district boundaries.
d~the years, DRI has made Sign~ hqcant ~s ia ve~l~.g its vision of ,,~ ~-i~g the
town 124-hour cente~ of~¢d,/ty for all sges m ~isit, woz~k, live m~d hsr~ ftm By
homing seven.eh not-for-profit cag~-i~.~iuns, blt m.t4.~ fm:ilities ~,w~-kh- f~...~.r
rental, by exhibithg work oflocu/md zegiot~l az'dsts in Thc ~ ~t Jefr~son Cen~r.
und by opm/-g of Shagm.. Peit%,~m.nce ~in 2001, Jefferson Cmt~ ~ s~,o~t to
Do~,utoxtm Ro~olre Inc's mission by expauc~ the aumber of Ixt6nesses md visitnts
Jefferso~ Camt~ Fmmdafioa xespe~Sdly t.~. ,e~_ts that ~_~v, utown Romok~/ac.
indorse the prop0s~l for expanding the dowuto,~ service district to iwh,ae the
Jeffim-~n Center arm and tt,-~ proceed with receiving approval from Roanoke City
Jmet P. Btmow
Px-e~,t,.~t & CEO
54! J.,~:k Aycnuc, ~Z Su~c 221 · I~ %rtr~nla 24016. p: 540_~. F: ~[0.548.3744
YMCA of Roanoke Valley
We build strong kids,
strong families, strong communities.
Corporate Office
P.O. Box 2130 (Zip 24009)
425 Church Avenu~ 8.W.
Roanoke, Vh'g/n/a 21016
Ih: (540) 52%9622
Faxz (540) 345-073~
Fm~l: ymcaroanok~nn~o~..ta~
OI~ICER8
J. W. Kirk, Ill
President
W. Lee Wilhelm, HI
V/ce President
Donald G. Smith
Vice President
William O. Sparrow
Gilbert W. McGeorge, Jr.
T~asurer
BOARD OF DIRFJ21ORS
Hanslon L. Bell, Ir.
Abney $. Boxley, H1
/olin Carlin
Robert P. Fralin
$. Randolph Garret, HI
Don I. Hanison
Alphmmo L. Holland, Sr.
M~/~et L lrvin
5ay W. Lang~,~ner
William C. Iamb
P, ol~ C. Laws~ jr.
Ph/llip A. Short
Phillip F. Spa~s
Diane Mcq. S~ict-t,~d
John Walker
Willie Wilhelm
Jolm B. Williamson, III
David D. Willis
~e C. vlrdson
Mi¢lmel A. Wray
W~dy Zomparelll
September 2, 2003
David A. Diaz
President
Downtown Roanoke Inc.
213 Market Street
Roanoke, VA 24011
Dear David:
I am pleased to tell you that the Board of Directors of the YMCA of
Roa~. oke Valley unan/mously voted to support the expamion of the DRI
sermee district at our meeting on August 21, 2003.
The YMCA ires had a continuing presence in downtown Roanoke since
1883. Our decision to build a new YMCA znd stay in downtown Ro~oke
reflects our belief in the future vitality znd growth of this area.
Over the years, DRI hun mude siEnifioi~ progress in realizing its vision of
mulelng the downtown a 24-hour center of activity Ibr all ages to visit,
work, live and have rum We fully suppert your mi-%'ion of attracting,
retaining :and exl~alldin.q ~ nllmber ofbusine~s~ resident~ and visitors in
the downtowm
Your efforts in facilitating public/private paxtoerships and mans~g the
Hiatoric City Maxket have made our downtown a safc~ and more enjoyable
place to be. Again, we ~pport the proposal to expand the downtown
sexvice district and urge its approval by the Roanoke City Council.
F. Cai Johnv~n
Executive Director
F. Cai Johnson
ExecUtive Direc~r
Our ai~ion: To put Christian principles into practice through programs that build a healthy spirit, mind, and body tot ail.
Downtown
Roanoke Inc.
To the Board of Directors of Downtown Roanoke, Inc.:
I would like tO pledge my support for the current efforts by Downtown
Roanoke, Inc.. (DRI) to expand the service district boundaries. As a
downtown property owner, I suppod the expansion and wish to have my
property included in the new district boundaries.
Over the years, DRI has made significant )~rogi'ess in realizing its vision
of making the downtown a 24-hour center of activity for all ages to visit,
work~ live and have fun. I want to support Y°ur mission of attracting,
retaining and expending the number of businesses, visitors and
residents in the downtown.
Your efforts in facilitating PUblic/private paffnerships, marketing and
managing the Historic City Market have made downtown a safer and
more enjoyable place to be. Again, I support your efforts and request
you endorse the proposal for expanding the downtown service district
and present it to.Roanoke City C,,guncll for their approval.
(Propen'y Owneds] - prim & sign)
(Date) ~ ' ---
To the Board of Directors of Downtown Roanoke, Inc.:
I would like to pledge my support for the current efforts by Downtown
Roanoke, Inc. (DRI) to expand the service distdct boundaries. As a
downtown property owner, I support the expansion and wish to have my
property included in the new distdct boundaries.
Over the years, DRI has made significant progress in realizing ils vision
of making the downtown a 24-hour center of~activity for all ages to visit,
work, live and have fun. I want to support your mission of attracting,
retaining and expending the number of businesses, visitors and
residents in the downtown.
Your efforts in facilitating public/private partnerships, marketing and
managing the Historic City Market have made downtown a safer and
more enjoyable place to be. Again, I support your efforts and request
you endorse the proposal for expanding the downtown service district
and present it to Roanoke City Council for their approval.
(Property 0wflL=,r[s] - Pd~t & sign)
(Address or city T'-ax'identiflcatio~l ~) ~
(Date)
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk@ci.roanoke.va.us
May 25, 2004
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
G. Michael Pace, Jr., Attorney
Gentry Locke Rakes & Moore, LLP
10 Franklin Road, S. E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24022-0013
Dear Mr. Pace:
Your request representing SunCom that Council schedule a public hearing
for Monday, June 7, 2004, at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the
matter may be heard, with regard to the construction and operation of a
110-foot flagpole communication facility and related equipment on a
portion of City-owned property located at the Roanoke Civic Center, was
before the Council of the City of Roanoke at its regular meeting held on
Thursday, May 20, 2004.
On motion, duly seconded and unanimously adopted, Council concurred
in the request.
Sincerely,
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
G. Michael Pace, Jr.
May 25, 2004
Page 2
pc:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
George C. Snead, Jr., Assistant City Manager for Operations
Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community
Development
R. Brian Townsend, Director, Planning Building and Development
Wilhemina W. Boyd, Director, Civic Facilities
Att~,ne~ a~ laiw
540.983.9300
Facsimile 540-983.9400
Direct Dial: (540) 983-9312
mike_pace @gentrylocke.com
GENTRY LOCKE
RAKES & MDDRE
A Limited Liability Partnership
May 12, 2004
10 Franklin Road, S.E.
Post Office Box 40013
Roanoke, Virginia 24022-0013
Via E-Mail - mary parker@ci.roanoke.va.us
Mary Parker, Roanoke City Clerk
215 Church Avenue, SW
Suite 456
Roanoke, VA 24012
Re: SunCorn/Roanoke Civic Center Lease
Dear Ms. Parker:
At its meeting on Tuesday, May 11, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously approved the granting of a
special exception to allow SunCom to construct and operate a 110-foot flagpole communication facility
and related equipment on a portion of the Roanoke Civic Center property. Please consider this letter a
request to have the approval of the lease placed on the agenda for Council to consider at its June 7
meeting.
We understand that City Council will consider this request at its May 20 meeting.
If you have any questions, please call me at (540) 983-9312.
Sincerely,
GENTRY LOCKE RAKES & MOORE, LLP
No signature - sent via electronic transmission
G. Michael Pace, Jr.
GMP:st
Darlene Burcham, City Manager, via e-mail - darlene_burcham@ci.roanoke.va.us
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney, via e-mail - william_hackworth @ci.roanoke.va.us
Dale Finocchi, via e-mail
14722/153/1150932.1
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKF
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011 - 1536
Telephone: (5;40) 853~2541
Fax: ($40) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk@ci.roanoke.va.us
May 26 2004
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
File #40-132
The Reverend Carl T. Tinsley, Sr.
Secretary
Roanoke City Electoral Board
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Reverend Tinsley:
Your communication transmitting an Abstract of Votes cast in the General
Election held in the City of Roanoke on May 4, 2004, was before the
Council of the City of Roanoke at its regular meeting held on Thursday,
May 20, 2004.
On motion, duly seconded and unanimously adopted, the Abstract of
Votes was received and filed.
Sincerely,
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
pc: Beryl L. Brooks, City Registrar
Roanoke City Electoral Board
May7,2004
Gilbert E. Butler, Jr., Chairman
Joanne P. Jones, Vice Chairman
Carl T. Tinsley, Sr., Secretary
Mrs. Mary F. Parker
City Clerk
Room 454, Municipal Building
Roanoke, VA 24011
Dear Mrs. Parker:
Pursuant to Section 24.2 - 675 of the Virginia Election Laws, attached is a certified copy
of the abstract of votes cast in the General Election for Mayor and City Council, held in
the City of Roanoke on May 4, 2004.
Yours Truly,
C~arl T~. Tins~ ey,~S~y
Roanoke City Electoral Board
CTT, Sr.,/byb
ARachment
Room 109, Municipal North 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (540) 853-2281 Fax (540) 853-1025
P.O, Box 1095, Roanoke, Virginia 24005
ABSTRA CT OF VOTES
cast in the City of ROANOKE
at the May 4, 2004 General Election, for:
· Virginia,
MAYOR
Alice P. Hincker
C. Nelson Harris
Delvis O. "Mac" McCadden
George A. Sgouros
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
(I~V F~U~Sl
................. 4,0~
................. 4,982
4,244
111
Total Write-In Votes
[Valid Write-Ins + Invalid Write-Ins = Total Writa-ln Votee ] ..........
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the Circuit
Court of the election held on May 4, 2004, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct Abstract of Votes cast
at said election and do, therefore, determine and declare that the following person has received the greatest number
of votes cast for the above office in said election:
C. Nelson Harris
Given under our hands this
,4 copy teste:
6 t h day of May, 2004.
, Chairman
, Vice Chairman
, Secretary
Electoral Board
ABSTRA CT OF VOTES
cast in the City of ROANOKE
at the May 4, 2004 General Election, for:
· Virginia,
MEMBER
CITY COUNCIL
AT LARGE
ENTER AT LARGE OR APPROPRIATE DISTRICT OR WARD NAME
(~v Frauds)
Wendy J. Jones
Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr.
Sherman P. Lea
Brian J. Wishneff
William H. "Bill" Carder
E. Duane Howard
Angela Mays Norman
................. 6t071
7,486
................. 6,623
................. 4,296
................. 817
................. 2,849
Total Write-In Votes
[Valid Write-Ins + Invalid Write-les = Total Write-In Votes ] ..........
2
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the Cimuit
Court of the election held on May 4, 2004, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct Abstract of Votes cast
at said election and do, therefore, determine and declare that the following person(s) has (have) received the greatest
number of votes cast for the above office in said election:
Beverly T. Fitzpatrick
Sherman P. Lea
Brian J. Wishneff
Given under our hands this
A copy teste:
5th
day of May, 2004.
, Chairman
, Vice Chairman
· Secretary
Secretary, ElectoraI Board
COMPLETE THIS FORM ONLY IF (i) TOTAL NUMBER OF WRITE-INS IS 5% OR MORE OF THE TOTAL NUMBER
OF VOTES CAST FOR OFFICE OR (ii) A WRITE-IN CANDIDATE WAS ELECTED TO THE OFFICE.
WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION
ROANOKE [~ General
~ TOW./COUm'~ t~
CITY COUNCIL
OFFICE TITLE
AT LARGE
DISTRICT NAME OR NUMEER, IF APPLIC~LE
WRITE-INS - SUMMARY
O Special Election
May 4, 2004
Page 1 of 1
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
(IN FIGURES)
1. Invalid Write-Ins ....................................
2. Valid Write-Ins ......................................
3. Total Write-Ins ......................................
[ENTER THIS FIGURE ON LINE FOR TOTAL WRITE-IN VOTES ON ABSTRACT FOR THIS OFFICE.]
0
ENTER TOTAL INVALID
ENTER TOTAL VALID
2
ADD LINES 1 AND 2
VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL
LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAl. ORDER BELOW AND ON CONTINUATION PAGES,
~S NEEDED. ALL VALID WRITE-INS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED
ON LINE 2 ABOVE.
Chris Chitum
TOTALVOTES
RECENED
(IN RGURES)
CONTINUED ON PAGES THROUGH
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the Circuit
Court of the election held on May 4, 2004, do hereby certify that, with the continuation pages indicated, the above is a
true and correct certification of the wdte-in votes cast at said election for the office indicated above.
Given under our hands this
A copy teste:
5th
day of May, 2004.
, Chairman
Vice Chairman
, Secreta~
Electoral Board
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 364
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591
Telephone: (540) 853-2333
Fax: (540) 853-1138
CityWeb: www.roanokegov.com
May 20, 2004
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Subject: Request for closed meeting
Dear Mayor Smith and Council Members:
This is to request that City Council convene aclosed meeting to discuss the
acquisition of real property for a public purpose, where discussion in open
meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of
the City, pursuant to §2.2-3711.A.3, of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
Sincerely,
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
DLB/f
C'
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
May 25, 2004
File #468
Jean M. Thurman, Secretary
Board of Directors, Western Virginia Water Authority
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Thurman:
This is to advise you that M. Rupert Cutler has qualified as a City representative to
the Board of Directors, Western Virginia Water Authority, for a term commencing
March 2, 2004 and ending March 1, 2006.
Sincerely,
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SMM:ew
pc: Stephanie M. Moon, Deputy City Clerk
Oath or Affirmation of Office
Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit:
I, M. Rupert Cutler, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the
Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge
and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a City representative to the
Board of Directors, Western Virginia Water Authority, for a term commencing
March 2, 2004 and ending March 1, 2006, according to the best of my ability. I
swear or affirm.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this j ~) day of_~ 2004.
BRENDA L. HAMILTON, CLERK
BY~ , DEPUTY CLERK
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
May 25, 2004
File #468
Teresa I. McDaniel, Secretary
Human Services Committee
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. McDaniel:
This is to advise you that Randy L. Leftwich has qualified as a member of the
Human Services Committee, for a term ending June 30, 2004.
Sincerely,
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SMM:ew
pc: Stephanie M. Moon, Deputy City Clerk
Oath or Affirmation of Office
Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit:
I, Randy L. Leftwich, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the
Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and
perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a member of the Human Services
Committee, for a term ending June 30, 2004, according to the best of my ability
(So help me God).
Subscribed and sworn to before me this~~' day of~////~ 2004.
BRENDA S. HAMILTON, CLERK
, DEPUTY CLERK
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 364
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591
Telephone: (540) 853-2333
Fax: (540) 853-1138
CityWeb: www.roanokegov.com
May 20, 2004
The Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor, and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Subject: Request for Closed Meeting
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of Council:
This is to request that City Council convene in a closed meeting to discuss
the award of a public contract involving the expenditure of public funds,
and discussion of the terms or scope of such contract, where discussion in
open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or
negotiating strategy of the public body, pursuant to §2.2-3711.A.30, of
the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
Sincerely,
City Manager
DLB:f
C:
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 364
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591
Telephone: (540) 853-2333
Fax: (540) 853-1138
CityWeb: www.roanokegov.com
May 20, 2004
The Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor, and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Subject: Request for Closed Meeting
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of Council:
This is to request that City Council convene in a closed meeting to discuss
the award of a public contract involving the expenditure of public funds,
and discussion of the terms or scope of such contract, where discussion in
open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or
negotiating strategy of the public body, pursuant to §2.2-3711.A.30, of
the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
Sincerely,
City Manager
DLB:f
C:
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
WILLIAM M. HACKWORTH
CITY A~TORNEY
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY
464 MUNICIPAL B U1LD1NG
215 CHURCH AVENUE, SW
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011-1595
TELEPHONE: 540-853 2431
FAX: 540-853-1221
EMAIL: cityatty ¢~ ci.roanoke.va.us
TIMOTHY R. SPENCER
STEVEN J. TALEVI
GARY E. TEGENKAMP
DAVID L. COLLINS
HEATHER p. FERGUSON
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS
May 20, 2004
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Re: Request for closed meeting
Dear Mayor Smith and Council Members:
This is to request that City Council convene a closed meeting for consultation with
legal counsel on a specific legal matter requiring the provision of legal advice by such counsel,
pursuant to {}2.2-3711.A.7, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
With kindest personal regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
WMH:f
William M. Hackworth
City Attorney
CC:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Man/F. Parker, City Clerk
CI_T...Y OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
May 24, 2004
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
File #60-103-108
Jesse A. Hall
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Hall:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 36696-052004 appropriating funds for an
indexing and scanning system fo[ the Clerk of the Circuit Court and establishing
revenue provided by the Compensation Board, and amending and reordaining
certain sections of the 2003-2004 General Fund Appropriations, in the amount of
$29,708.00.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
at a regular meeting which was held on Thursday, May 20, 2004, and is in full
force and effect upon its passage.
Sincerely,
5tephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SMM:ew
Attachment
Jesse A. Hall
May 24, 2004
Page 2
pc:
The Honorable Brenda S. Hamilton, Clerk of Circuit Court
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Sherman M. Stovall, Acting Director, Office of Management and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 20th day of May, 2004.
No. 36696-052004.
AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding for an indexing and scanning system for
the Clerk of the Cimuit Court and establish revenue provided by the Compensation Board,
amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2003-2004 General Fund Appropriations,
and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the following
sections of the 2003-2004 General Fund Appropriations be, and the same'are hereby,
amended and reordained to read and provide as follows:
Appropriations
Maintenance Contracts
Fees for Professional Services
Revenues
Clerk of Circuit Court
001-120-2111-2005 $ 21,708
001-120-2111-2010 8,000
001-110-1234-0616 29,708
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading
of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with.
ATTEST:
Clerk.
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 364
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591
Telephone: (540) 853-2333
Fax: (540) 853-1138
CityWeb: www.roanokegov.com
May 20, 2004
Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Vice Mayor
Honorable W. D. "Bill" Bestpitch, Council Member
Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council:
Subject:
Acceptance of Technology Funds
CM04-00085
I concur with the recommendation from Brenda S. Hamilton, Clerk of Circuit Court, for the
City of Roanoke, with respect to the subject reference above and recommend that City
Council accept funding from the Compensation Board Technology Trust Fund and
establish a revenue estimate in the General Fund.
City Manager
DLB:sm
C:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
TWENTY-THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF VIRGINIA
Criminal: (540) 853-6723
Civil: (540) 853-6702
CLERK OF C/RCUi~ C'o(~4i~
May 20,2004
BRENDA S. HAMILTON
CLERK
Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Vice Mayor
Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member
Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
CIRCUIT COURT
OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE
315 Church Avenue, S.W.
RO. Box 2610
Roanoke, Virginia 24010
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council:
Subject:
ACCEPTANCE OF
TECHNOLOGY TRUST
FUNDS
Background:
The Clerk of the Circuit Court is responsible, by statute, for the recordation of
legal instruments. These instruments include: Land Records, Marriage
Licenses, Financing Statements, Assumed Names, Wills and other Probate
Records, and Law, Chancery and Criminal Orders. These Records must be
maintained and be available to the Public.
The Compensation Board through the Technology Trust Fund has made
available funds to be allocated toward contractual obligations for those offices
that have indicated funds were needed. The Circuit Court Clerk's Office for the
City of Roanoke has been allocated for reimbursement in the amount of $21708
for charges by the Supreme Court of Virginia for it's Indexing and Scanning
System and $8000 for the purchase of new printers for use with this system, for a
total of $29708.
Considerations:
The acceptance of= these funds is vital to the Circuit Court Clerk's Office meeting
the year end budget obligations.
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
May 20, 2004
Page 2
Recommended Action:
Accept funding from the Compensation Board Technology Trust Fund in the
amount of $29,708.
Establish a revenue estimate in the General Fund in the amount of $29~708 and
appropriate the same to the following accounts:
Maintenance Contracts 001-120-2111-2005 $21,708
Fees for Professional Services 001-120-211%2010 $8,000
BSH:jmh
C:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Respectfully submitted,
Clerk of Circuit Court
CM04-00085
CITy.. OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
May. 24, 2004
File #24-47
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 36697-052004 amending subsection (g) of
§34-130, Rate Schedule, Division IV, Fares, Article III, Public Vehicles (Taxicabs
and For-Hire Vehicles), Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, in order
to adjust certain rates charged for services rendered by taxicabs and for-hire
automobiles.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
at a regular meeting which was held on Thursday, May 20, 2004, and is in full
force and effect upon its passage.
Sincerely,
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SMM:ew
Attachment
Darlene L Burcham
May 24, 2004
Page 2
pc:
The Honorable
Virginia
The Honorable
Virg~ma
The Honorable
Virg~ma
The Honorable
Virg~ma
The Honorable
Virgima
The Honorable
Virgima
The Honorable
The Honorable
The Honorable
The Honorable
The Honorable
The Honorable
District Court
Robert P. Doherty, Chief Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of
William D. Broadhurst, Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of
Clifford R. Weckstein, Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of
Charles N. Dorsey, Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of
Jonathan M. Apgar, Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of
James R. Swanson, Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of
Julian H. Raney, Jr., Chief Judge, General District Court
George W. Harris, Jr., Judge, General District Court
Vincent A. Lilley, Judge, General District Court
Francis W. Burkart, III, Judge, General District Court
Jacqueline F. Ward-Talevi, Judge, General District Court
John B. Ferguson, Chief Judge, Juvenile and Domestic Relations
The Honorable Joseph M. Clarke, II, Judge, Juvenile and Domestic Relations
District Court
The Honorable Philip Trompeter, Judge, Juvenile and Domestic Relations District
Court
The Honorable Joseph P. Bounds,Judge,Juvenile and Domestic Relations District
Court
Sheila N. Hartman, Assistant City Clerk, (For transmittal by electronic mail to
Municipal Code Corporation)
Municipal Code Corporation, P. O. Box 2235, Tallahassee, Florida 323].6
Raymond F. Leven, Public Defender, 2].0 First Street, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia
240].].
Ronald S. Albright, Clerk, General District Court
David C. Wells, Clerk, Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court
The Honorable Brenda S. Hamilton, Clerk of Circuit Court
The Honorable Evelyn W. Powers, City Treasurer
The Honorable Sherman A. Holland, Commissioner of the Revenue
Lora A. Wilson, Law Librarian
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Sherman M. Stovall, Acting Director, Office of Management and Budget
W. E. Roberts, President, Yellow Cab Services of Roanoke, Inc.,
1325 7th Street, N. E., Roanoke, Virginia 240].2
Reggie Sisson, President, Liberty Cab Company, 439 Vinton, Virginia 24].79
Dave A. Parker, Co-President, Quality Taxi Company,
3762B Williamson Road, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 240].2
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 20th day of May, 2004.
No. 36697-052004.
AN ORDINANCE amending subsection (g) of §34-130, Rate Schedule, of Division IV,
Fares, Article III, Public Vehicles (Taxicabs and For Hire Vehicles), of the Code of the City of
Roanoke (1979), as amended, in order to adjust certain rates charged for services rendered by
taxicabs and for-hire automobiles; and dispensing with the second reading by title paragraph of
this ordinance.
BE IT ORDAI/qED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. Subsection (g) of §34-130, Rate Schedule, of Division IV, Fares, Article III,
Public Vehicles (Taxicabs and For Hire Vehicles), of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as
amended, is hereby amended to read and provide as follows:
§34-130. Rate schedule.
***
(g) The rates for services rendered by taxicabs and for-hire
automobiles shall be as follows:
(1) Distance rates:
a. For the first one-eighth (1/8) mile or fraction
thereo one .......... ~..~ ...... ~w .... ,
two dollars and eighty cents ($2.80).
b. For each additional one-eighth (1/8) mile or
fraction thereof, twenty cents ($0.20).
(2) Time rates: For each forty (40) seconds of waiting time,
twenty cents ($0.20). While a charge is made for waiting
time, there shall be no charge for mileage under the
foregoing distance rates.
(3) Extra passengers: For each additional passenger, thirty
cents ($0.30).
2. Pursuant to the provisions of {}12 of the Roanoke Charter, the second
reading by title of this ordinance is hereby dispensed with.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
H:XlVlEASURES~o-amt axicabrates2004.doc
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CiTY MANAGER
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 364
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591
Telephone: (540) 853-2333
Fax: (540) 853-1138
CityWeb: www.roanokegov.com
Ma¥20,2004
Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Vice Mayor
Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member
Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council:
Subject:
Adjustment of Rates for
Taxicab Service
Background:
During the March 15~h Council meeting, Yellow Cab Services of Roanoke,
Inc. submitted a petition requesting an adjustment of the rates for
taxicab service and for-hire automobiles in the City, which rates are
regulated by City Council under Section 34-130 of the Code of the City of
Roanoke (1979), as amended. Taxicab service in Roanoke is provided by
Yellow Cab, Liberty Cab Company, Northwest Cab Company, and Quality
Taxi Company.
Per the petitioner, this represents the first request for an increase in
almost four years (the last increase was adopted by Council on June 5,
2000). The request is based on the continued and significant increases
in the cost of doing business (insurance rates up over 35%, repair costs
up over 25%, fuel costs up over 30%, and labor costs up over 20%). The
proposed increase would help offset current expenses for the taxicab
companies.
Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
May 20, 2004
Page 2
The requested increase is for the initial meter drop rate to be raised from
$1.80 for the first 1/8th mile to $2.80 for the first 1/8~h mile. No other
rate increases are requested. The average taxicab trip in Roanoke is
three miles, which presently costs $6.40. Under the new proposal, the
average increase in fare will be $! .00 per trip, an increase of 15.6%.
Per the petitioner, the proposed increase in rates is in line with those
proposed or in effect in major cities in Virginia. The petition noted the
rates used by taxi companies in seven other localities.
City staff together with the City Attorney's office conducted a survey
among other Virginia municipalities to determine their practices with
respect to regulating taxicabs, specifically the regulation of rates. In
addition, calculations were made to compare the cost of a three mile trip
in Roanoke under the new rate ($7.40) to the cost of that same trip in the
seven localities noted in the petition. Though Roanoke's charge was the
highest, it was still in line with what the other localities are charging.
However, Roanoke's cab companies do not levy extra charges for such
services as transporting packages, groceries, luggage, or for providing
night service. Many cities and counties allow these and other additional
charges.
Recommended Action:
Update Section 34-130 (g) of the City Code to reflect an increase in the
"distance rate" for a taxi trip from $1.80 to $2.80 for the first 1/8~h mile
or fraction thereof.
DLB:rbl
C:
Respectfully submitted,
Darlene L. Bur~ a~m~
City Manager
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Sherman M. Stovall, Acting Director of Management and Budget
CM04-00082
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
May 24, 2004
File #60-537
Jesse A. Hall
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Hall:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 36698-052004 appropriating funds from the
Commonwealth for the Roanoke Passenger Station Renovation project, and
amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2003-2004 Capital Projects Fund
Appropriations, in the amount of $110,000.00.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
at a regular meeting which was held on Thursday, May 20, 2004, and is in full
force and effect upon its passage.
Sincerely,
Stephanie M. Moon, CMU
Deputy City Clerk
SMM:ew
Attachment
Jesse A. Hall
May 24, 2004
Page 2
pc:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Robert K. Bengtson, Director of Public Works
Sherman M. Stovall, Acting Director, Office of Management and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 20th day of May, 2004.
No. 36698-052004.
AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding from the Commonwealth for Roanoke
Passenger Station Renovation project, amending and reordaining certain sections of the
2003-2004 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading
by title of this ordinance.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the following
sections of the 2003-2004 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations be, and the same are
hereby, amended and reordained to read and provide as follows:
Appropriations
Appropriation From General Revenue 008-530-9900-9007 $ 110,000
Revenues
Roanoke Passenger Station-TEA21 FY04 008-530-9900-9911 110,000
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading
of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with.
ATTEST:
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE C1TY MANAGER
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 364
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591
Telephone: (540) 853-2333
Fax: (540) 853-1138
CityWeb: w~vw.roanokegov.com
May20,2004
Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Vice Mayor
Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member
Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council:
Subject: Roanoke Passenger Station
Renovation Project
Background:
The Western Virginia Foundation for the Arts and Sciences (WVFAS)
received notification in November, 2003 that its application for
Transportation Enhancement funds through the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21 s, Century (TEA-21) for the Roanoke Passenger Station Renovation
ProJect was approved in the amount of $110,000. This is in addition to
the $988,000 in Enhancement funds approved in 2001 and 2002, bringing
the total to $1,098,000. Other State-provided funding of $500,000 has
also been committed to this project which currently totals almost $3.1
million, considering both State and local funding. The City of Roanoke
must enter into separate supplemental agreements with the WVFAS and
the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), which define the
responsibilities of each party. Authority for all such VDOT agreements for
this project was previously authorized by City Council action on January
22, 2002 (Resolution No. 35734-012202). Authority for all such WVFAS
agreements for this project was previously provided through Ordinance
No. 36157-121602. The WVFAS would be responsible for the match
requirement of $27,500. The $110,000 of TEA-21 Enhancement funds
need to be appropriated (to be reimbursed by VDOT) to the project
account #008-530-9900-9007 for disbursement to the WVFAS.
The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
May 20, 2004
Page 2
Recommended Action:
Appropriate $110,000 of TEA-21 Enhancement funds to be funded by
VDOT to project account 008-530-9900-9007 for disbursement to the
WVFAS.
Establish a revenue estimate of the same for State reimbursement through
the TEA-21 program.
Respectfully submitted,
City Manager
DLB/RKB/gpe
C:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Robert K. Bengtson, P.E., Director of Public Works
Sherman M. Stovall, Acting Director of Management and Budget
CM04-00083
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
May 24, 2004
File #60-226-236-305
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 36700-052004 authorizing acceptance ora
Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant from the Virginia Department of
Criminal Justice Services on behalf of the City, and authorizing execution of any
and all necessary documents to complywith the terms and conditions of the grant
and applicable laws, regulations, and requirements pertaining thereto, in the
amount of $48,493.00.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
at a regular meeting which was held on Thursday, May 20, 2004, and is in full
force and effect upon its passage.
Sincerely,
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SMM:ew
Attachment
Darlene L. Burcham
May 24, 2004
Page 2
pc:
John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator, County of Roanoke,
P. O. Box 29800, Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
Jane R. Conlin, Director, Human Services/Social Services
Sherman M. Stovall, Acting Director, Office of Management and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 20th day of May, 2004.
No. 36700-052004.
A RESOLUTION authorizing acceptance of a Juvenile Accountability Incentive
Block Grant from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services on behalf of the City,
authorizing execution of any and all necessary documents to comply with the terms and
conditions of the grant and applicable laws, regulations, and requirements pertaining thereto.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant funds from the Virginia
Department of Criminal Justice Services, in the mount of $48,493.00, as set forth in the City
Manager's letter, dated May 20, 2004, to this Council are hereby ACCEPTED.
2. The City Manager, or her designee, is hereby authorized to execute any and all
requisite documents pertaining to the City's acceptance of these grant funds, and to furnish
such additional information as may be required in connection with the City's acceptance of
these grant funds. All documents shall be approved by the City Attorney.
ATTEST:
~~ City Clerk.
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
Stephanie M. Moon
Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
May 24, 2004
File #60-226-236-305
Jesse A. Hall
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Hall:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 36699-052004 appropriating funds from the
Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Program and local match for juvenile education
programs, and amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2003-2004
General and Grant Fund Appropriations, in the amount of $48,493.00.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
at a regular meeting which was held on Thursday, May 20, 2004, and is in full
force and effect upon its passage.
Sincerely,
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SMM:ew
Attachment
Jesse A. Hall
May 24, 2004
Page 2
pc:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
Sherman M. Stovall, Acting Director, Office of Management and Budget
Jane R. Conlin, Director, Human Services/Social Services
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 20th day of May, 2004.
No. 36699-052004.
AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding from the Juvenile Accountability Block
Grant Program and local match for juvenile education programs, amending and reordaining
certain sections of the 2003-2004 General and Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing
with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the following
sections of the 2003-2004 General and Grant Fund Appropriations be, and the same are
hereby, amended and reordained to read and provide as follows:
General Fund
Appropriations
Transfer to Grant Fund 001-250-9310-9535 $ 3,608
Fees For Professional Services 001-630-1270-2010 (3,608)
Grant Fund
Appropriations
Fees For Professional Services 035-630-5060-2010 36,081
Fees For Professional Services 035-630-5061-2010 17,800
Revenues
State Grant Receipts - City 035-630-5060-5062 32,473
Local Match - City 035-630-5060-5063 3,608
State Grant Receipts - County 035-630-5061-5064 18,020
Local Match - County 035-630-5061-5065 1,780
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading
of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with.
ATTEST:
· ~ty Clerk.
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 364
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591
Telephone: (540) 853-2333
Fax: (540) 853-1138
CityWeb: www.roanokegov.com
May20,2004
Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Vice Mayor
Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member
Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of Council:
SubJect: Juvenile Accountability Block
Grant Award No. 04-F3221JB03
Background:
The Department of Criminal Justice Services notified Roanoke and Roanoke
County of an allocation of funds under the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant
Program 0ABG). The allocation of $48,493 in federal funds was awarded jointly
to the two jurisdictions. A joint local match of $5,388 is required.
Considerations:
The allocation formula provides $32,473 federal and $3,608 match for Roanoke
and $16,020 federal and $1,780 match for Roanoke County. Staff from the
jurisdictions have met and developed program proposals for the use of the
funding. Roanoke County will provide a substance abuse intervention
education program through the schools. Roanoke, in collaboration with the
Boys and Girls Club and Total Action Against Poverty will provide services to
students suspended or otherwise absent from school during the day. TAP-
Project Recovery will help adjudicated youth avoid the negative risks and
unproductive lifestyles that often correlate with dropping out of school.
Funding for the City's match of $3,608 is in account 001-630-1270-2010,
Human Services Support. Roanoke will serve as the fiscal agent for the funds.
Mayor Smith and Members of City Council
May 20, 2004
Page 2
Recommended Action:
Authorize the City Manager or her designee to accept the $48,493 JABG grant
allocated to Roanoke for $32,473, and Roanoke County for $16,020 and to
execute the agreement from the Department of Criminal Justice Services for the
funds.
Appropriate $53,881 and increase the corresponding revenue estimates of
$48,493 in federal funds and $1,780 in County match funds in accounts to be
established by the Director of Finance in the Grant Fund and transfer $3,608
from Human Services Support account 001-630-1270-2010 to the Grant Fund
account established above.
DLB/cwt
C:
City Manager
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
Sherman M. Stovall, Acting Director of Management and Budget
Jane Conlin, Director of Human/Social Services
John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator
CM04-00084
MARy F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
F~x: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clcrk~ci.roanoke.va.us
May 24, 2004
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
File #60-467
Gloria P. Manns, Chair
Roanoke City School Board
1727 Staunton Avenue, N. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24017
Dear Ms. Manns:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 36701-052004 appropriating funds for
equipment from the Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program
(CMERP), and amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2003-2004 School
Funds Appropriations, in the total amount of $469,636.00.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
at a regular meeting which was held on Thursday, May 20, 2004, and is in full
force and effect upon its passage.
Sincerely,
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SMM:ew
Gloria P. Manns
May 24, 2004
Page 2
pc:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Sherman M. Stovall, Acting Director, Office of Management and Budget
Cindy H. Lee, Clerk, Roanoke City School Board,
P.O. Box13145, Roanoke, Virginia 24031
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 20th day of May, 2004.
No. 36701-052004.
AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding for equipment from the Capital
Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program (CMERP), amending and reordaining
certain sections of the 2003-2004 School Funds Appropriations and dispensing with the
second reading by title of this ordinance.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the following sections
of the 2003-2004 School Funds Appropriations be, and the same are hereby, amended
and reordained to read and provide as follows:
General Fund
Appropriations
Transfer to School Fund-CMERP
Fund Balance
Reserve for CMERP - School
School Fund
Appropriations
Additional - Machinery & Equipment
Additional - Machinery & Equipment
Replacement - Other Capital Outlays
Comp of Teachers
Revenues
Transfer From General Fund-CMERP
Local Match
Fund Balance
Reserve for CMERP - School
001-250-9310-9532
001-3324
$ 630,626
(630,626)
030-060-6006-6681-0821 185,637
030-060-6006-6682-0821 58,999
030-065-6006-6896-0809 150,000
030-063-6852-6100-0121 75,000
001-110-1234-1356 630,626
030-063-6852-1101 75,000
030-3324 235,990
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading
of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with.
ATTEST:
.~j~ Gloria P. Manns, Chairman
Ruth C. Willson, Vice Chairman
William H. Lindsey
//-Roanoke
City School Board P.O. Box 13145, Roanoke, Virginia 24031
Alvin L. Nash
Robert J. Sparrow
Kathy G. Stockburger
David B. Trinkle, M.D.
E. Wayne Harris, Ed.D., Superintendent
Cindy H. Lee, Clerk of the Board
· 540-853-2381 · Fax: 540-853-2951
May 20, 2004
The Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
and Members of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, VA 240:[1
Dear Members of Council:
As the result of official School Board action at its meeting on May 11, the
Board respectfully requests City Council to approve the following appropriations:
· $394,636.00 from the 2003-04 Capital Maintenance and Equipment
Replacement Fund to provide for the replacement of facility
maintenance site requests, the purchase of a mowing tractor, and for
roof repairs.
· $75,000.00 for the Alternative Education Program to provide
alternative curriculum and training for high risk students at Taylor
Learning Academy, with a focus on improving the total self-concept of
the student. This is a continuing program and this appropriation
represents an increase of funds based on the final program activities
and availability of match funds.
Thank you for your approval of this request.
re
Sincerely,
CC:
Mrs. Gloria P. Manns
Dr. E. Wayne Harris
Mr. Richard L. Kelley
Mr. Kenneth F. Mundy
Mrs. Darlene Burcham
Mr. William M. Hackworth
Mr. Jesse A. Hall
Mr. Paul Workman (with
accounting details)
Discovering the Wealth in All Children
JESSE A. HALL
Director of Finance
eraail: j esse_hall~cLroanoke.va.us
May 20, 2004
CITY OF ROANOKF
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 461
P.O. Box 1220
Roanoke, Virginia 24006-1220
Telephone: (540) 853-282 l
Fax: (540) 853-6142
ANN H. SHAWVER
Deputy Director
email: ann_.sh awver(~ci roanoke.va.u s
The Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
The Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Vice Mayor
The Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member
The Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
The Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member
The Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Council Member
The Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council:
We have reviewed the attached request to appropriate funding for the School Board.
report will appropriate the following:
This
$394,636 from the 2003-04 Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Fund to
provide for the replacement of facility maintenance site requests, the purchase of a
mowing tractor, and for roof repairs.
$75,000 for the Alternative Education Program to provide alternative curriculum and
training for high risk students at Taylor Learning Academy, with a focus on improving
the total self-concept of the student. This is a continuing program and this appropriation
represents an increase of funds based on the final program activities and availability of
match funds.
We recommend that you concur with this report of the School Board and adopt the attached
budget ordinance to appropriate funding as outlined above.
Sincerely,
Jesse A. Hall
Director of Finance
Attachment
JAH/pac
C:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
E. Wayne Harris, Superintendent of City Schools
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
May 24, 2004
File #192
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 36702-052004 authorizing the City Manager
to execute an amendment to Section 14.2(b) of the License Agreement dated May
18, 2001, between the City and Arena Ventures, LLC, extending the date by which
Arena Ventures must provide written notice to the City that it is exercising its right
to terminate such License Agreement from May 31, 2004, until June 30, 2004,
upon certain terms and conditions.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
at a regular meeting which was held on Thursday, May 20, 2004, and is in full
force and effect upon its passage.
With kindest regards,
Sincerely,
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SMM:ew
Attachment
Darlene L. Burcham
May 24, 2004
Page 2
pc:
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Sherman M. Stovall, Acting Director, Office of Management and Budget
Wilhemina W. Boyd, Director, Civic Facility
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 20th day of ~ay, 200~.
No. 36702-05200a.
AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to the License
Agreement dated May 18, 2001, between the City and Arena Ventures, LLC, extending the date
by which Arena Ventures must provide written notice to the City that it is exercising its right to
terminate such License Agreement from May 31, 2004, until June 30, 2004, upon certain terms
and conditions; and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance by title.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. The City Manager and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute and attest
respectively, an amendment to Section 14.2(b) of the License Agreement dated May 18, 2001,
between the City and Arena Ventures, LLC, extending the date by which Arena Ventures must
provide the City with written notice that it is terminating the License Agreement for failure of
attendance levels to reach certain threshold requirements fi'om May 31, 2004, until June 30,
2004, and as further discussed in the City Manager's letter to Council dated May 20, 2004. All
necessary documents shall be upon form approved by the City Attorney.
2. Pursuant to Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this Ordinance is
hereby dispensed with by title.
ATTEST:
~-~ ~ t~[..~City Clerk.
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 364
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591
Telephone: (540) 853-2333
Fax: (540) 853-1138
CityWeb: www.roanokegov.com
May 20, 2004
Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Vice Mayor
Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member
Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
Subject: Amendment to
Agreement with Arena
Ventures, LLC, to Extend the
Deadline of Certain Notice
Requirements Relating to
Exercise of Arena Ventures'
Ability to Terminate the
Agreement
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council:
Background:
In May, 2001, City Council authorized City officials to enter into a License
Agreement ("Agreement") with Arena Ventures, LLC, ("AV") that provided
for use of the Civic Center Coliseum and certain related Civic Center
facilities by AV to provide a certain number of National Basketball
Development League ("NBDL") games and a certain number of
entertainment events produced by SFX Concerts, Inc., in the Coliseum over
a five year period. That Agreement was entered into on May 18, 2001.
Section 14.2 (b) of the Agreement provides AV the right to terminate the
Agreement if the average paid attendance at regular season NBDL League
Games is less than 4,500 in any League season ending prior to june 1,
2004. The Agreement further requires AV to provide the City with written
notice no later than May 31, 2004, should AV decide to exercise this
provision.
Mayor Smith and Members of City Council
May 20, 2004
Page 2
Considerations:
The attendance threshold stated above has not been met for any of the
NBDL's regular season League games for the past three seasons.
Accordingly, AV now has the right to terminate the Agreement. AV has
indicated to City staff a positive and clear interest in staying in Roanoke
for the remainder of the term of the Agreement, but seeks some
consideration for renegotiation of the Agreement without the pressure of
the May 31, 2004, deadline. AV has indicated that it is making similar
efforts to seek renegotiation of its agreements with other localities
although the deadline varies with each locality. AV has requested an
extension of the May 31, 2004, deadline by which it must give notice if it
intends to exercise this provision by one month, in order to have more
time to discuss renegotiation of the Agreement with City staff.
Recommended Action:
Authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to the Agreement
with Arena Ventures, LLC, extending the May 31, 2004, deadline by which
Arena Ventures must provide the City with written notice that it is
terminating the Agreement pursuant to Section 14.2 (b), until June 30,
2004. All documents shall be upon form approved by the City Attorney.
Respectfully submitted,
Darlene L. Btrl~ham
City Manager
DLB:dc
C:
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
desse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Wilhemina Boyd, Director of Civic Facilities
CM04-00090
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011 - 1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fox: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk~ci.roanoke.va.us
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
May 26 2004
File #51
Robert B. Marietta, Chair
City Planning Commission
2831 Stephenson Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dear Mr. Manetta:
A public hearing on the request of Fudds of S.W.VA., Inc., property
located at 3659 Orange Avenue, N. E., Official Tax No. 7110122, be
rezoned from RS-3, Residential Single Family District, to C-2, General
Commercial District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the
petitioner, was before the Council of the City of Roanoke at its regular
meeting held on Thursday, May 20, 2004.
On motion, duly seconded and adopted, the request for rezoning was
referred to the City Planning staff for review of additional proffers and
report to Council no later than Monday, June 21,2004.
Sincerely,
Stephanie M. Moon
Deputy City Clerk
Robert 13. Manetta
May 26, 2004
Page 2
pc:
Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Attorney, Glenn, Feidmann, Darby and
Goodlatte, P. O. Box 2887, Roanoke, Virginia 24001
Parkway Wesleyan Church, 3230 King Street, N. E., Roanoke,
Virginia 24012
Ms. Evelyn Keister Gish, 3659 Orange Avenue, N. E., Roanoke,
Virginia 24012
Susan S. Lower, Director, Real Estate Valuation
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
CITY OF ROANOKE
PLANNING BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 166
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: ($40) 853-1730 Fax: ($40) 853-1230
E-mail: plan ning~ci.roanoke.va.us
Architectural Re~riew Board
Board of Zoning Appeals
Planning ( ommission
May 20, 2004
Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Vice Mayor
Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member
Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council:
Subject:
Request from Fudds of S.W.VA., Inc., represented by
Maryellen F. Goodlatte, attorney, that property located at
3659 Orange Avenue, N.E., bearing Official Tax No.
7110122, be rezoned from RS-3, Residential Single Family
District, to C-2, General Commercial District, such
rezoning to be subject to certain conditions proffered by
the petitioner.
Planning Commission Action:
Planning Commission public hearing was held on Thursday, April 15, 2004.
By a vote of 0-7, the motion to recommend the rezoning request failed.
Background:
A Petition to Rezone, with conditions, was filed on October 2, 2003. An
Amended Petition was filed on October 3, 2003. A Second Amended Petition
was filed on February 11,2004. A Third Amended Petition was filed on
March 4, 2004. A Fourth Amended Petition was filed on March 23, 2004. A
Fifth Amended Petition was filed on April 12, 2004.
The petitioner proffers that the following uses shall not be permitted on the
property:
2.
3.
4.
Police stations;
Fire stations;
Rescue squads and ambulance services;
Military reserve and National Guard centers;
5. Training facilities related to police, fire, rescue and ambulance uses;
6. Coliseums, stadiums, exhibition halls, and similar facilities;
7. General service establishments;
8. Outdoor advertising;
9. Gas stations;
10. New motor vehicle sales and service establishments;
11. Public parking lots;
12. Public parking structures;
] 3. Bus terminals for the loading and unloading of passengers;
14. Used motor vehicle sales and service establishments; and
15. Towing services.
The initial petition filed on October 2, 2003, proffered a site plan that
included a 5,000 square foot restaurant, two curb cuts on Orange Avenue,
and 128 off-street parking spaces situated between the front of the building
and Orange Avenue, along the southern boundary of the property, and to the
rear of the building.
The Amended Petition filed on October 3, 2003, did not include a proffered
site plan but proffered three conditions that limited the subject property to
(1) use as a restaurant, (2) one curb cut on Orange Avenue, and (3) one
freestanding sign.
The Second Amended Petition filed on February ] 1,2004, proffered one
condition that prohibited two C-2 uses on the property (outdoor advertising
and automobile repair).
The Third Amended Petition filed on March 4, 2004, included a larger tract of
land and the same limitation on uses on the property as that contained in the
Second Amended Petition.
The Fourth Amended Petition filed on March 23, 2004, included the 3.13
acre-parcel of the first three petitions and proffered one condition that
prohibited two C-2 uses on the property (outdoor advertising and automobile
repair).
The Fifth Amended Petition filed on April 12, 2004, prohibits fifteen (15) C-2
uses on the property.
Considerations:
The subject property is currently zoned RS-3, Residential Single Family.
Surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
The adjacent parcel to the east abuts the City of Roanoke/Roanoke
County line and is zoned C-2, General Commercial, Conditional. A
flower shop in a converted residential structure is located on the site.
The parcel abutting the subject property on the south and to the west
is zoned RS-3, Residential Single Family. The two properties fronting
on Orange Avenue directly to the west of the RS-3 parcel are zoned C-
2, General Commercial (bank/credit union) and C-2, Conditional
(bottled gas facility).
Properties further to the southwest on the south side of Orange
Avenue are also zoned C-2 and C-2, Conditional, and include an office
building.
Directly opposite the subject property on the north side of Orange
Avenue is the Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology, which is
zoned LM, Light Manufacturing.
The petition requests that 3.13 acres, containing approximately 300 feet of
frontage on Orange Avenue and a depth of almost 540 feet, be rezoned to
C-2, General Commercial, with a proffered condition that prohibits fifteen
(15) delineated C-2 uses. Although the petition states that the request is "for
the purpose of permitting a restaurant on the property," the petition's
proffered condition does not limit development of this parcel to a restaurant
use. Because the concept plan is not proffered, neither the restaurant
"delineation" nor the footprint of the building in terms of size or location as
delineated on the concept plan are proffered.
The following factors underscore the significance of the subject site:
The site's location at a major gateway to the City and its proximity to
the entrance to the Roanoke Center for Industry and Technology
(RCIT);
· The site's 3.13-acre size and its potential for accommodating multiple
uses, structures, signage, and curb cuts; and
The limited opportunity within the City for development of a property
that represents both significant size and a location along a major
gateway.
Given the significance of the subject site and the potential impact of its
development as a C-2 property, there are concerns with the potential use(s)
of the property that would be permitted if the rezoning request were
approved in its current form. The Fifth Amended Petition proffers that 15
permitted C-2 uses would be prohibited on the property. The C-2 District
permits 36 other uses by right (including highway convenience stores, open
air markets, and automobile cleaning facilities) and 11 special exception
uses. Without additional proffers which refine their development as to
intensity, traffic generation and circulation, curb cuts, and streetscape,
certain C-2 uses permitted within the parameters of the current form of this
petition could be inappropriate on this site.
Although the Fifth Amended Petition lengthens the list of C-2 uses that would
be prohibited on the property, the petition establishes no site development
parameters within which this property could be developed if the rezoning
request in its current form were approved. In order to assess the proposal's
consistency with Vision 2001-2020's site development principles, the
following issues should be addressed as a condition of the rezoning:
· Number and location of curb cuts and shared access
o More definition within petition to assess request's consistency
with Vision 2001-2020'$ policies of minimizing curb cuts and
taking advantage of opportunities to share points of access on a
multiple use, multiple structure parcel;
o Justification of more than one curb cut from a functional
standpoint given that no median break on Orange Avenue would
be permitted in this location because of the proximity to the
Mexico Way/Blue Hills traffic signal.
· Freestanding signage
o C-2 sign regulations would permit a total sign allocation for this
property, both attached and freestanding, of up to 848.5 square
feet of sign area; and
o Up to 3 freestanding sign structures on the property would be
permitted, which structures could include a total of 4 signs, with
up to a total of 249 square feet of sign area;
· Relationship of a building or buildings to Orange Avenue in terms of
defining the streetscape, particularly in regard to the setback of any
building and the amount of pavement that separates any building from
Orange Avenue;
· Landscaping, specifically in terms of preserving and replacing tree
canopy; and
· Designation and planting of the required landscape buffer along the
subject property's southern and eastern boundaries which abut a
residentially zoned parcel.
Staff discussed concerns with the petitioner and worked with the petitioner to
address those issues. Early discussions resulted in the filing of an Amended
Petition (first amended), which addressed the issues of minimizing curb cuts
(limited to one on Orange Avenue), freestanding signage (limited to one), and
use (limited to a restaurant). With the filing of the first amended petition,
staff had only one outstanding issue, the amount of off-street parking
located between the building and Orange Avenue. The evolution of
subsequent amended petitions only reinforced concerns with the lack of
refinement for development of this large property which can accommodate
multiple uses and multiple structures. The Second, Third, and Fourth
Amended Petitions, and the Fifth Amended Petition, which is the petition
under consideration, provide none of the proffered conditions of the first
amended petition and provide less definition of site development.
Since 1989, three (3) properties on the southern side of Orange Avenue, in
close proximity to the subject property, have been conditionally rezoned
from residential to C-2, General Commercial. Those rezoning requests were
approved subject to proffered use and a proffered site plan. The property
abutting the subject property to the east was conditionally rezoned in 1991
for a flower shop restricted to an existing residential structure.
Given the significance of this property, both its location and size, a change in
zoning district designation that would permit the C-2 development of this
site should be deemed appropriate only if the proposed development is
found to be consistent with Vision 2~)OI-2020's policy regarding the creation
of commercial centers rather than strip development. The petition, in its
current form, is seriously deficient in providing definition that allows an
assessment of the request's consistency with the following policies and
principles of V/s/on 2001-2020:
Commercial development should be concentrated at key
intersections...Curb cuts should be minimized. (p. 92, Commercial
corridors)
...encourage maximum use of commercial and industrial sites by
addressing setbacks, lot coverage, parking requirements, and
landscaping to encourage development of commercial businesses in
centers versus strip developments. (p. 61, ED A27)
A continued comprehensive emphasis on city design will improve
Roanoke's attractiveness for new commercial and residential
development and strengthen individual neighborhoods. (p. 4, #2)
· Buildings and trees should shape the City's image rather than asphalt
and signs. (p. 4, #2)
Building location and design should be considered as important
elements of the streetscape and should be used to define the street
corridor as a public place. (p. 95, Buildings)
Parking: Roanoke will...discourage excessive surface parking lots. Off-
street parking will be encouraged to the side or rear of buildings. (p.
72, IN P4)
Commercial centers (p. 91-92):
o Maximize site development through reduced parking spaces,
increased lot coverage, and parcels developed along street
frontages.
o Parking lots should have trees located in the interior of the site
and along street frontages.
o Curb cuts should be minimized; shared parking Iots...should be
encouraged.
· Signs should be limited in number and scaled in size to minimize
visual clutter. (p. 95, Trees, Signs, and Lighting)
The petition's concept plan and the lack of definition of site development in
the form of proffered conditions raise serious questions about this site being
developed in a manner that is consistent with Vision 2001-2020, particularly
with regard to commercial development along major corridors and at
gateways to the City. The current form of the petition, if approved, could
result in land uses and site development that would permit a continuation of
a strip commercial pattern of development on this site that would be
inconsistent with Vision 2001-2020.
No one has contacted the planning staff in opposition to this petition.
During the Planning Commission public hearing, there was no public comment.
Planning Commission discussion included the following:
· Decisions about curb cuts on Orange Avenue;
· Why the petitioner is unwilling to limit use of the property to a
restaurant if that is the known proposed use of the property and to
come back before the Planning Commission for an amendment of
proffered conditions when it is known how the rest of the property is
to be developed;
· Availability of land properly zoned in the City for a restaurant if the
petitioner does not want to come back to the Commission to amend
proffered conditions;
· Locating the building closer to the street frontage and property line
(cited successful restaurants in Roanoke which have parking to the
sides and rear, not in the front, as well as other jurisdictions in which
the same franchise of the petitioner sited the building closer to the
street with no parking in the front);
· Clarification as to why the first amended petition which addressed 3 of
the 4 issues raised by staff (all except the placement of the building)
was subsequently amended not to include those proffered conditions
(bringing such petition forward to the Commission would have
provided for a more focused discussion of the issues);
· Need to get a clear idea of the proposal by seeing a site plan and
development model that shows where the buildings are located and
how they relate to the street; and
· The lack of specificity in the petition, with the form of the petition
containing little substance on which to justify a rezoning of over three
acres of land.
Recommendation:
Without a clearer definition of the proposed development in terms of use and
site development that would allow for an assessment of the proposal's
consistency with Vision 2001-2020, the Planning Commission recommends
that City Council deny the requested rezoning.
Respectfully submitted,
Roanoke City Planning Commission
CC:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Rolanda Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Attorney for the Petitioner
r~
IN ~ COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE~ VIRGINIA
Rezoning of one tract of land located at 3659 Orange Avenue, N.E., identified as official Tax
Map Number 7110122, from RS-3, Residential Single-Family District, to C-2, General
Commercial District, such rezoning to be subject to certain conditions.
F]FYH AMENDED PETITION
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA:
Petitioner FUDDS OF S.W. VA., INC., owns real property in the City of Roanoke, Virginia,
containing 3.130 acres, more or less, located at 3659 Orange Avenue, N.E. and being Tax Map
Number 7110122. The property is currently zoned RS-3, Residential Single-Family District. A map of
the property to be rezoned is attached as Exhibit A.
Pursuant to Section 36.1-690, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, Petitioner
requests that the said property be rezoned from RS-3, Residential Single-Family District, to C-2,
General Commercial District, subject to certain conditions set forth below, for the purpose of
permitting a restaurant on the property. The conceptual development plan prepared by Lumsden
Associates, P.C., dated February 4, 2004, is attached hereto as Exhibit B ("Development Plan,').
Your petitioner believes the rezoning of the property will further the intent and purposes of the
City's Zoning Ordinance and Vision 2001-2020 Comprehensive Plan. This property is located along
and would be oriented toward Orange Avenue. This project will promote quality development and
good use along the Orange Avenue commercial corridor, and would permit this parcel to be used for
commercial purposes consistent with its C-2 neighbors.
Your petitioner hereby proffers and agrees that if the sa/d tract is rezoned as requested, that the
fo[lowing uses shall not be permitted on the property:
1. Police stations;
2. Fire stations;
3. Rescue squads and ambulance services;
4. Military reserve and National Guard centers;
5. Training facilities related to police, fire, rescue and ambulance uses;
6. Coliseums, stadiums, exhibition halls, and similar facilities;
7. General service establishments;
8. Outdoor advertising;
9. Gas stations;
10. New motor vehicle sales and service establishments;
11. Public parking lots;
12. Public parking structures;
13. Bus terminals for the loading and unloading of passengers;
14. Used motor vehicle sales and service establishments; and
15. Towing services.
Attached as Exhibit C are the names, addresses and tax numbers of the owners of all lots or
properties immediately adjacent to, immediately across a street or road fi~om the property to be
rezoned.
2
WHEREFORE, your Petitioner requests that the above-described tract be rezoned as
requested in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roanoke~
This Fifth Amended Petition is respectfully submitted this 9 f'~ day of April, 2004.
FUDDS OF S.W.VA., INC.,
a Virginia corporation
Of Counsel
Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Esq.
Glenn, Feldmann, Darby & Goodlatte
210 1st Street, SW., Suite 200
P. O. Box 2887
Roanoke, Virginia 24001-2887
(540) 224-8018 - Telephone
(540) 224-8050 - Facsimile
mgoodlatte~gfdg, corn
3
FUDDS OF S,W,VA,, INC,, a Virginia e~rpor~tton, owner ot thc pr~pea'ty subj~ to t.Ma p~itton,
hereby consents to thi~ ilflh amcndrd petition including thc voluntar~ profl'~'rs e, or:t~ilacd her¢iI1,
FUDDS OF S,W.VA.
its:_
II
ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS
FUDDS OF S.W.VA., INC.
Tax Parcel Number 7110122
3659 Orange Avenue, N.E., Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Tax Mal~ Number
7110106
Owner(s)/Address
Evelyn Keister Gish
3659 Orange Avenue, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
7110105
Parkway Wesleyan Church, Inc.
3230 King Street, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
7160102
7160113
City of Roanoke
215 Church Avenue, Room 250
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Thursday, May 20, 2004
To: The Honorable Mayor and Members, Roanoke City Council
From: Victor F. Foti, President, Fudd's of S.W. VA, Inc.
Re: Rezoning of one tract of land located at 3659 Orange Avenue, N.E.
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
I am writing to give you as much background as possible and also to hopefully
give you more time to study this request prior to our appearance before you this evening.
If you have the opportunity of receiving this information in advance then our time before
you can concentrate on questions you may have. We appreciate your consideration and
will try to enhance your meeting time on this matter.
We are here before City Council trying to construct a Fuddrucker's restaurant in
conformity to a successful restaurant business model, We are confident that our plan will
enhance this area of Orange Avenue and add value for us and the City of Roanoke.
In the fall of 2003, my son Frank and I met with Darlene Burcham, Brian
Townsend and Beth Neu. While we had filed our rezoning petition by that point, staff
concerns about the building setback from 460, building orientation and parking resulted
in our request for a continuance.
In addition to the issues of minimum setback and restaurant orientation, some of the
following points were discussed:
Mrs. Burcham commented that our points, though different fi-om those of
staff, were good points, worthy of consideration, and that we should take our
plan directly to the Planning Commission. I remarked to Mrs. Burcharn that
she had a paid staff, while we have to pay for legal services for assistance at
our own expense. It is our desire to go to the Planning Commission with Staff
approval.
We expressed our dissatisfaction with the process by which suggestions and
comments were given fi-om Staffin regards to our site plan. Resolution by
Staff on the issue of building placement was presented hand drawn on a
napkin. There was no compromise or suggestions offered by Staffwith the
site plan to current zoning and the proposed Comprehensive Plan.
The lack of staff imerest in working with developers is apparent in this
situation. I asked why we could not work together and make this project
happen.
We explained that rezoning would provide
Jobs - 60 - 75 positions
Generation of additional Real Estate and Property Taxes
Generation of additional Sales Tax
Note: We estimate these taxes to be in the range of $10,000 to $15,000 in
Real Estate and Property Taxes and $60,000 to $75,000 in Sales
Taxes
We have the following points to consider:
· Minimum Setback
Other restaurants have been mentioned by Staffand the Planning Commission
as examples of minimum setback. Although, at our meeting with Ms.
Burcham, Brian Townsend, and Beth Neu, they could not give us one
example of a restaurant having being built according to the Comprehensive
Plan. The restaurants mentioned were Red Lobster, Hooters and a
Fuddruckers located in Hylton Head, SC. The Planning Commission (Mr.
Mannetta) reported that The Fuddruckers located in Hylton Head, SC was
located directly on the road with minimum setback. Mr. Mannetta is not
aware that the Fuddruckers in Hylton Head, SC., which was built more
than 10 years ago, was sold back to Fuddruckers Corporate. This
happens when fi'anchises are not successful and Corporate buys them out
rather than closing the restaurant. Red Lobster was built over 20 years ago
and Hooters is a conversion of an existing site and not new construction.
From a planning standpoint, we do not consider it wise to place our
Restaurant on the minimum setback llne in the face of the possibility
that this road (460) needs to be widened considering the present and
future Traffic. We are looking for our restaurant to have at least a 30 year
economic life and hopefully 40 years.
· Building Orientation
From a business standpoint, we do not want to mm the restaurant sideways
on the property with the back of the restaurant facing our next door neighbor
and oncoming traffic (customers) from the west. We wish to present the best
business model for a restaurant by placing the orientation of this building
facing the road leaving deliveries, trash disposal and pick-up away fi-om the
building, and out of sight from everyone as much as possible. The back
entrance to a restaurant is not what you want anyone to observe. You
certainly don't want your customers to park in the rear. Buildings, such as
the Fuddruckers prototype are designed for specific advertisement for
the brand. They are constructed so their orientation to the road can enhance
"curb appeal".
Curb Cuts,
At~er initial meetings with planning staff,, curb cuts were proffered to be
one. Atter meeting with some individual council members, it has been
suggested that the site might have 2 (two) curb cuts considering the size of
the lot. This point is positive for the growth of the tract, but not imperative.
Fudds of SW Va can proffer one curb cut if needed.
Signage
The amount of signage now allowable for this property under current
zoning is not acceptable to the Planning Commission. We have and will
proffer that there would be one free standing sign for the restaurant and
one freestanding sign for the remainder of the property. The size of each
sign and its construction would conform to the Comprehensive Plan.
Landscaping
The current tract contains a residence with hardwoods directly around the
home. Uncleared trees border the hack portion of the property. Most of
this parcel, the main area of this tract is cleared field. Development of thc
site would provide more canopy than leaving it undeveloped (the
Comprehensive Plans calls for 10% landscaping) given now that less than
10% of the current site if foliage.
Parking
Fudds has and will continue to work with Planning staff to keep the
number of parking spaces at a minimum, but not the overall layout of the
parking lot (minimum setback). In working with planning stat~, we
revised the total number of parking spaces down twice. The site also
incorporates an underground storm water retention system, allowing
greater utilization of the tract and enhancing aesthetics and property value.
The parking lot would contain areas for shrubbery to shield traffic and
guest from just seeing paved areas.
Our investment will be in the range of $1,500,000 and we will not get $1.00
return until and after the City of Roanoke gets $10,000 - $15,000 in real and personal
property taxes and $60,000 to $75,000 in sales taxes per year. I am sure everyone
realizes the financial impact over 20 - 30 - 40 years.
lfwe cannot orient our location on the site so that it is visible to our~customers
going east and west; if'we turn it sideways and the back of our restaurant (dumpsters, etc)
is seen by our neighbor and customers coming west; if the customers can't park
conveniently to enter; [four customers don't see cars parked at our unit to show business
activity, then, this restaurant is not setup in a successful restaurant business model.
When you also consider signage restrictions it is also more reason to have
your restaurant facing 460/Orange Ave., so customers can see it going both ways.
Visability is definitely of major importance and an issue in promoting a restaurant
business.
As stated previously, our goal is to spend approximately $1,500,000 and do all
possible to have a successful business. Our risk is tremendous and no guarantees. This is
a business decision for us and not a 2001-2020 Vision. We hope to be successful well
beyond 2020.
If the Planning Commission and City Council wants to make a statement in
support of Vision 2001-2020 on the last parcel, no more than 100 feet removed from the
Roanoke County line, in the City of Roanoke, and pass on this development, I understand
your fight to do so.
However, I find it difficult to understand the unwillingness by your Staff'to work
with us particularly when your Agent cannot give us one example of a restaurant built in
the City of Roanoke that has been built in accordance with Vision 2001-20~0.
We have no alternative to our business decision as it pertains to this parcel and we
are hopeful that we can continue to grow in Roanoke and be a good corporate citizen as
we have for 20 years. However, due to our franchise development requirements we must
construct another Fuddruckers restaurant within the next twelve (12) months and we have
purchased the adjoining parcel to the Roanoke City line across the street (Orange
Avenue) in Roanoke County. This is our alternative site.
The development of this site - and I repeat, happens to be the last parcel fronting
and bordering on 460 going East going toward Bedford and one 100' parcel removed,
with restricted zoning, from the Roanoke County line could not possibly "result in land
uses and site development that would permit a continuation of a strip commercial pattern
of development on this site that would be inconsistent with Vision 2001-20207 This
quote is found on page 7 and 8 of Amended StaffReport of April 15, 2004. The pattern
for Orange Avenue has been and was set many years ago. A 300' road frontage parcel is ·
not going to change Orange Avenue or its direction. This is the last site on Orange
Avenue going East for development. A Fuddruckers', as proposed on this parcel, will
enhance the view of this area.
We have operated three restaurants with the City of Roanoke for approximately
twenty (20) years and proud of our locations from both a business and appearance
standpoint. Our restaurant (Western Sizylin) on Franklin Koad is the oldest, full-sen, ice
restaurant in Roanoke with continuous o;)erations at the same location. Ou~ goal is to do
another restaurant (Fuddruckers), a family, casual type establishment. When done using
a proper restaurant business model will be successful and will enhance our business and
the City of Roanoke.
The City's Comprehensive Plan has been cited to us as the reason why the
Planning Commission recommended against this rezoning. As you well know, the
Comprehensive Plan is suppose to be a guide, and not a straight-jacket requiring a one-
size-size-fits-all approach to planning. The Plan is supposed to encourage economic
development - especially along a commercial corridor such as Orange Avenue. No one
except staff and the Planning Commission objects to the construction and operation ora
Fuddruckers Restaurant on this site.
We have agreed to a whole list of uses that could not go on this property. We are
willing to go further and proffer that the first development on the site will be a restaurant.
We're also willing to limit signage and curb cuts. We would like to invest in this site, but
we are not willing to take the risk associated with the sigxfiflcant investment we will
make if we can't situate the restaurant where it makes economic sense to us. We are not
asking for a variance - we will comply with all of the City's codes. But please don't
take planning theories that may work in other places and impose them upon us.
Thank you very much for your consideration of our request for a rezoning. I will
be present at tonight's meeting and will be very happy to answer any questions you may
have.
Sincerely,
Victor F. Foti, President
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
AN ORDINANCE to amend §36.1-3, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as
amended, and Sheet No. 711, Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, to rezone certain
property within the City, subject to certain conditions proffered by the applicant; and
dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance by title.
WHEREAS, Fudds of S.W.VA., Inc. has made application to the Council of the City
of Roanoke to have the hereinafter described property rezoned from RM-3, Residential
Single-Family District, to C-2, General Commercial District, subject to certain conditions
proffered by the applicant; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, which after giving proper notice to all
concerned as required by §36.1-693, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and
after conducting a public hearing on the matter, has made its recommendation to Council;
and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by City Council on said application at its
meeting on May 20, 2004, after due and timely notice thereof as required by §36.1-693, Code
of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, at which hearing all parties in interest and
citizens were given an opportunity to be heard, both for and against the proposed rezoning;
and
WHEREAS, this Council, after considering the aforesaid application, the
recommendation made to the Council by the Planning Commission, the City's
Comprehensive Plan, and the matters presented at the public hearing, is of the opinion that
the hereinafter described property should be rezoned as herein provided.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. Section 36.1-3, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and Sheet
No. 711 of the Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, be amended in the following
particular and no other:
That certain tract of land located at 3659 Orange Avenue, S.E., containing 3.13 acres,
more or less, known as Official Tax No. 7110122, and designated on Sheet No. 711 of the
Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, be, and is hereby rezoned from RS-3,
Residential Single-Family District, to C-2, General Commercial District, subject to the
proffers contained in the Fifth Amended Petition filed in the Office of the City Clerk on
April 12, 2004, and that Sheet No. 711 of the Zone Map be changed in this respect.
2. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading
of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
The Roanoke Times
Roanoke, Virginia
Affidavit of Publication
The Roanoke Times
.................................................. + ...........................
GLENN, FELDMANN, DARBY & GOODL
PO BOX 2887
210 FIRST ST
ROANOKE VA 24001
REFERENCE: 80078049
02356132
Fudds (Orange Ave.)
State of Virginia
City of Roanoke
I, (the undersigned) an authorized representative
of the Times-World Corporation, which corporation
is publisher of the Roanoke Times, a daily
newspaper published in Roanoke, in the State of
Virginia, do certify that the annexed notice was
published in said newspapers on the following
dates:
City/County of Roanoke, Commonwealth/State of
Virginia. Sworn and subscribed before me this
___~_day of May 2004. Witness my hand and
official seal. ~
. ot rypublie
~UBLISHED ON: 05/03 05/10
TOTAL COST:
FILED ON:
245.82
05/14/04
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Authorized
Signature: ....
Billing Services Representative
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Pursuant to the provisions of Article VII of Chapter 36.1, Code of the City of Roanoke
(1979), as amended, the Council of the City of Roanoke will hold a Public Heating on
Thursday, May 20, 2004, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber in the Noel C. Taylor
Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., on the question of rezoning from RS-3,
Residential Single-Family District, to C-2, General Commercial District, subject to certain
proffered conditions, the following property:
That tract of land located at 3659 Orange Avenue, N.E., containing 3.13 acres,
more or less, and further identified as Official Tax No. 7110122.
A copy of this proposal is available for public inspection in the Office of the City
Clerk, Room 456, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building. All parties in interest may appear on
the above date and be heard on the question.
If you are a person with a disability who needs accommodations for this public
heating, contact the City Clerk's Office, 853-2541, by Monday, May 17, 2004.
GIVEN under my hand this 29th day of April ,2004.
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk.
N-Rezo-Fudds051704
Notice to Publisher:
Publish in the Roanoke Times once on Monday, May 3, 2004, and Monday, May 10, 2004.
Send affidavit to:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
215 Church Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
(540) 853-2541
Send bill to:
Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Esq.
Glenn, Feldmann, Darby & Goodlatte
P. O. Box 2887
Roanoke, Virginia 24001
(540) 224-8000
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk~ci.roanoke.va, us
April 29, 2004
File #51
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Attorney
Glenn, Feldmann, Darby and Goodlatte
P. O. Box 2887
Roanoke, Virginia 24001
Dear Ms. Goodlatte:
Pursuant to provisions of Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council of the City
of Roanoke on Monday, April 6, 1981, I have advertised a public hearing for
Thursday, May 20, 2004, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be
heard, in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building,
215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, on the request of FUDDS of S.W.VA.,
Inc., requesting Amendment of Proffered Conditions in connection with rezoning
of a tract of land located at 3659 Orange Avenue, N. E., Official Tax No. 7110122,
containing 3.13 acres, more or less, from RS-3, Residential Single-Family District,
to C-2, General Commercial District, subject to certain conditions proffered bythe
petitioner.
For your information, I am enclosing copy of a report of the City Planning
Commission and a notice of the public hearing. Please review the documents and
if you have questions, you may contact StevenJ. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney, at
540-853-2431. Questions with regard to the City Planning Commission report
should be directed to the Department of Planning, Building and Development at
540-853-1 730.
HSPublic Hearings 20042vlay 2004LMay 2004 Attorney and Adjoining Propety Owners Letters.doc
Maryellen F. Goodlatte
April 29, 2004
Page 2
It will be necessary for you, or your representative, to be present at the May 20
public hearing. Failure to appear could result in a deferral of the matter until a
later date.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ew
Enclosure
H:Wublic Hearings 2004~Vlay 2004~Vlay 2004 Attorney and Adjoining Propety Owners Letters.doc
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOIx'I,
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk~ci.roanok¢.va.us
April 29, 2004
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
File #51
Parkway Wesleyan Church
3230 King Street, N. E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Evelyn Keister Gish
3659 Orange Avenue, N. E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Pursuant to provisions of Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council of the City
of Roanoke on Monday, April 6, 1981, I have advertised a public hearing for
Thursday, May 20, 2004, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be
heard, in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building,
215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, on the request of FUDDS of S.W.VA.,
Inc., requesting Amendment of Proffered Conditions in connection with rezoning
of a tract of land located at 3659 Orange Avenue, N. E., Official Tax No. 7110122,
containing 3.13 acres, more or less, from RS-3, Residential Single-Family District,
to C-2, General Commercial District, sabject to certain conditions proffered bythe
petitioner.
The City Planning Commission is recommending that Council deny the request for
rezoning. If you would like to receive a copy of the report of the City Planning
Commission, please call the City Clerk's Office at 540-853-2541.
This letter is provided for your information as an interested property owner and/or
adjoining property owner. If you have questions with regard to the matter, please
call the Department of Planning, Building and Development at 540-853-1 730.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ew
H:\Public Hearings 2004hMay 2004\May 2004 Attorney and Adjoining Propety Owners Letters.doc
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fox: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk(~ci.roanoke.va.us
April 15, 2004
File #51
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEII~ N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
Robert B. Manetta, Chair
City Planning Commission
2831 Stephenson Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dear Mr. Manetta:
Pursuant to Section 36.1-690(e) of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, I
am enclosing copy of a fifth amended petition received in the City Clerk's Office on
April 12, 2004, from Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Attorney, representing FUDDS of S.W.VA.,
INC., requesting Amendment of Proffered Conditions in connection with rezoning of a tract
of land located at 3659 Orange Avenue, N. E., Official Tax No. 7110122, containing 3.130
acres, more or less, from RS-3, Residential Single-Family District, to C~2, General
Commercial District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner.
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ew
Enc,
H:\Rezonings - Street Alley Closings 03\rezenings 03\october~fourth amendment 3659 Orange Ave, N. E.wpd
Robe~ B. Mane~a
April15,2004
Page 2
pc:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council
Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Attorney, Glenn, Feldmann, Darby & Goodlatte, P. O. Box
2887, Roanoke, Virginia 24001
Susan S. Lower, Director, Real Estate Valuation
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer
Ronald L. Smith, Building Commissioner
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
GLENN
FELDMANN
GOODLATTE
210 1st Street S.W.
Suite 200
Post Office Box 2887
Roanoke, Virginia 24001
540.2248000
Fax 540.2248050
gfdg*gfdg corn
April' 12, 2004
MARYELLEN F. GOODLATTE
Direct Dial (540) 224-8018
E-mail mgoodlatte~gfdg.com
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Nancy Snodgrass
Roanoke City Planning & Development
Municipal Building, Room 177
215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Re:
Rezoning of one tract of land located at 3659 Orange Avenue, N.E.,
identified as official Tax Map Number 7110122 from RS-3, Residential
Single-Family District, to C-2, General Commercial District, such
rezoning to be subject to certain conditions
Dear Nancy:
Pursuant to FUDDS OF S.W.VA., INC.'s rezoning request, we enclose the
following for filing:
An original and two copies of a Fifth Amended Petition,
with all exhibits attached thereto, requesting that one tract
of land located in the City of Roanoke be rezoned from
RS-3 to C-2; and
2. Nine reduced copies of the site plan.
If you have any questions or need further information, please do not hesitate to
call me.
Very truly yours,
Maryellen F. Goodlatte
MFG:lnh:4504003
Enclosures
cc: FJ, JDDS OF S.W.VA., 1NC. (w/enc.)
'FVls.
· Mary F. Parker (w/encs.)
1954 5~ele~ratinff 50 ~:~ear. s c~ ~!~ewice 2004
IN ~ COUNCIL OF T]~ CITY OF ROANOKE~ VIRGINL~,
Rezoning of one tract of land located at 3659 Orange Avenue, N.E., identified as official Tax
Map Number 7110122, from RS-3, Residential Single-Family District, to C-2, General
Commercial District, such rezoning to be subject to certain conditions.
FIlqTH AM~ENDED PETITION
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA:
Petitioner FUDDS OF S.W. VA., INC., owns real property in the City of Roanoke, Virginia,
containing 3.130 acres, more or less, located at 3659 Orange Avenue, N.E. and being Tax Map
Number 7110122. The property is currently zoned RS-3, Residential Single-Family District. A map of
the property to be rezoned is attached as Exhibit A.
Pursuant to Section 36.1-690, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, Petitioner
requests that the said property be rezoned ~om RS-3, Residential Single-Family District, to C-2,
General Commercial District, subject to certain conditions set forth below, for the purpose of
permitting a restaurant on the property. The conceptual development plan prepared by Lumsden
Associates, P.C., dated February 4, 2004, is attached hereto as Exhibit B ("Development Plan").
Your petitioner believes the rezoning of the property will fi~rther the intent and purposes of the
City's Zoning Ordinance and Vision 2001-2020 Comprehensive Plan. This property is located along
and would be oriented toward Orange Avenue. This project will promote quality development and
good use along the Orange Avenue commercial corridor, and would permit this parcel to be used for
commercial purposes consistent with its C-2 neighbors.
Your petitioner hereby proffers and agrees that if the said tract is rezoned as requested, that the
following uses shall not be permitted on the property:
1. Police stations;
2. Fire stations;
3. Rescue squads and ambulance services;
4. Military reserve and National Guard centers;
5. Training facilities related to police, fire, rescue and ambulance uses;
6. Coliseums, stadiums, exhibition halls, and similar facilities;
7. General service establishments;
8. Outdoor advertising;
9. Gas stations;
10. New motor vehicle sales and service establishments;
11. Public parking lots;
12. Public parking structures;
13. Bus terminals for the loading and unloading of passengers;
14. Used motor vehicle sales and service establishments; and
15. Towing services.
Attached as Exhibit C are the names, addresses and tax numbers of the owners of all lots or
properties immediately adjacent to, mediately across a street or road from the property to be
rezoned.
2
WHEREFORE, your Petitioner requests that the above-described tract be rezoned as
requested in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roanoke.
This Fifth Amended Petition is respectfully submitted this ~ ~ day of April, 2004.
FUDDS OF S.W. VA., INC.,
a V~trginia corporation
Of Counsel
Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Esq.
Glenn, Feldmann, Darby & Goodlatte
210 1st Street, S.W., Suite 200
P. O. Box 2887
Roanoke, Virginia 24001-2887
(540) 224-8018 - Telephone
(540) 224-8050 - Facsimile
mgoodlatte~gfdg.com
D4/'09/2~B4 0~; 24 54072544'~0 VTAf,4,~C E)FFTCES SALE PAGE 0i
UL~N~4'i~'LJJ~'I I'a×:bao-FP4-,'~Jso ,'qpr~ 9 2004 9,*%~ P. 05
FUDDS OF $.W.VA,, INC,, a Vir~nia ~rpora~lo~, oven~ of thc propcs~ su~'~ ~o ~$ p~ltion,
hereby consents to this fil~h arn=nd~.d pcb/t/on includ/ng t~¢ voluntary proffers cor~ts/~cd herein,
FUDDS OF S,W.VA., INC,
it~:__ ~l~u¢,, U ................
4
LUMSDEN ASSOCIATES, I~C.
4 ..~,.'..o,~ LUMSDEN ASSOCIATES, P'~C.
ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS
FUDDS OF S.W.VA., INC.
Tax Parcel Number 7110122
3659 Orange Avenue, N.E., Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Tax Map Number
7110106
Owner(s)/Address
Evelyn Keister Gish
3659 Orange Avenue, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
7110105
Parkway Wesleyan Church, Inc.
3230 King Street, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
7160102
7160113
City of Roanoke
215 Church Avenue, Room 250
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011 - 1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk~ci.roanoke.va.us
March 23, 2004
File #51
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEIL~ N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
Robert B. Marietta, Chair
City Planning Commission
2831 Stephenson Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dear Mr. Manetta:
Pursuant to Section 36.1-690(e) of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, I
am enclosing copy of a fourth amended petition received in the City Clerk's Office on
March 23, 2004, from Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Attorney, representing FUDDS of S.W.VA.,
INC., requesting Amendment of Proffered Conditions in connection with rezoning of a tract
of land located at 3659 Orange Avenue, N. E., Official Tax No. 7110122, containing 3.130
acres, more or less from RS-3, Residential Single-Family District, to C-2, General
Commercial District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner.
Sincerely,
City Clerk
MFP:ew
Eric.
H:\Rezonings - Street Alley Closings 03\rezonings 03\october~four[h amendment 3659 Orange Ave, N. E.wpd
Robe~ B. Mane~a
March 23,2004
Page 2
pc~
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council
Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Attorney, Glenn, Feldmann, Darby & Goodlatte, P. O. Box
2887, Roanoke, Virginia 24001
Susan S. Lower, Director, Real Estate Valuation
Madha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer
Ronald L. Smith, Building Commissioner
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
GLENN
FELDMANN
GOODLATTE
210 1st Street Sx,V
Suite 200
Post Office Box 2887
Roanoke, Virginia 24001
MO2948000
Fax 5402248050
gfdg~gfd~ corn
March 23, 2004
MARYELLEN F. GOODLATTE
Direct Dial (540) 224-8018
E-mail mgoodlatte~gfdg.com
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Nancy Snodgrass
Roanoke City Planning & Development
Municipal Building, Room 177
215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Re;
Rezoning of one tract of land located at 3659 Orange Avenue, N.E.,
identified as official Tax Map Number 7110122 from RS-3, Residential
Single-Family District, to C-2, General Commercial District, such
rezoning to be subject to certain conditions
Dear Nancy:
Pursuant to FUDDS OF S.W.VA., INC.'s rezoning request, we enclose the
following for filing:
An original and two copies of a Fourth Amended Petition,
with all exhibits attached thereto, requesting that one tract
of land located in the City of Roanoke be rezoned from
RS-3 to C-2; and
One full-size copy and nine reduced copies of the site
plan.
If you have any questions or need further information, please do not hesitate to
call me.
MFG:lnh:4504003
Enclosures
cci
Very truly yours,
Maryellen F. Goodlatte
~s. MDS OF S.W.VA., 1NC. (w/enc.)
ary F. Parker (w/encs.)
1954 C~elebratin~ /~qO c::~ear~. (q~ ~ervice 2004
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE~ VIRGINIA
IN RE:
Rezoning of one tract of land located at 3659 Orange Avenue, N.E., identified as official Tax
Map Number 7110122, from RS-3, Residential Single-Family District, to C-2, General
Commercial District, such rezoning to be subject to certain conditions.
FOURTH AMENDED PETITION
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCEL OF THE CITY OF
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA:
Petitioner FUDDS OF S.W.VA., 1NC., owns real property in the City of Roanoke, Virginia,
containing 3.130 acres, more or less, located at 3659 Orange Avenue, N.E. and being Tax Map
Number 7110122. The property is currently zoned RS-3, Residential Single-Family District. A
map of the property to be rezoned is attached as Exhibit A.
Pursuant to Section 36.1-690, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, Petitioner
requests that the said property be rezoned from RS-3, Residential Single-Family District, to C-2,
General Commercial District, subject to certain conditions set forth below, for the purpose of
permitting a restaurant on the property. The conceptual development plan prepared by Lumsden
Associates, P.C., dated February 4, 2004, is attached hereto as Exhibit B ("Development Plan").
Your petitioner believes the rezoning of the property will further the intent and purposes of
the City's Zoning Ordinance and Vision 2001-2020 Comprehensive Plan. This property is located
along and would be oriented toward Orange Avenue. This project will promote quality
development and good use along the Orange Avenue commercial corridor, and would permit this
parcel to be used for commercial purposes consistent with its C-2 neighbors.
Your petitioner hereby proffers and agrees that if the said tract is rezoned as requested, that
the following uses shall not be permitted on the property:
1. Outdoor advertising subject to the requirements of sections 36.1-440 et seq.; and
2. Automobile repair establishments including painting and body shops.
Attached as Exhibit C are the names, addresses and tax numbers of the owners of all lots or
properties immediately adjacent to, immediately across a street or road fi.om the property to be
rezoned.
WHEREFORE, your Petitioner requests that the above-described tract be rezoned as
requested in accordance with the provisions of the Zon/ng Ordinance of the City of Roanoke.
This Fourth Amended Petition is respectfully submitted this ~Z.5 day of'March, 2004.
FUDDS OF S.W.VA., INC.,
a Virginia corporation
~/ Of Counsel
Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Esq.
Glenn, Feldmann, Darby & Goodlatte
210 1st Street, S.W., Suite 200
P. O. Box 2887
Roanoke, Virginia 24001-2887
(540) 224-8018 - Telephone
(540) 224-8050 - Facsimile
mgoodlatte~gfdg.com
FUDD$ OF S.W.¥A., INC., a Vir~'~ta corpo~tion, ~r v£the pr~p~'y ~ubj~t ~ t~ pet/ti~n,
\
LUMSDEN ASSOCIATES, I~C,
£NGI NEER~-SIJR¥1~ OP,~-PLAN N EP~
ADJOINING PROI~ERT¥ OWNERS
FUDDS OF S.W.VA., INC.
Tax Parcel Number 7110122
3659 Orange Avenue, N.E., Roanoke, Virg/nia 24012
Tax Ma Number
7110106
Owne~
Evelyn Keister Gish
3659 Orange Avenue, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
7110105
Parkway Wesleyan Church, Inc.
3230 King Street, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
7160102
7160113
City of Roanoke
215 Church Avenue, Room 250
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
TO THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
PERTAINING TO THE REZONING REQUEST OF:
Fudds of SW Va, Inc., at 3659 Orange Avenue, N.E. )
Tax No. 7110122 from RS-3 to C-2, conditional ) AFFIDAVIT
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA )
) TO-WIT:
CITY OF ROANOKE )
The affiant, Martha Pace Franklin, first being duly sworn, states that she is
Secretary to the Roanoke City Planning Commission, and as such is competent
to make this affidavit of her own personal knowledge. Affidavit states that,
pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204, Code of Virginia, (1950), as
amended, on behalf of the Planning Commission of the City of Roanoke, she has
sent by first-class mail on the 24th day of March, 2004, notices of a public hearing
to be held on the 15th day of April, 2004, on the rezoning captioned above to the
owner or agent of the parcels listed below at their last known address:
Parcel Owner's Name
7110105 Parkway Wesleyan Church
7110106 Evelyn Keister Gish
7160113 City of Roanoke
Notice Also Mailed to: Roanoke County
Janet Scheid, Chief Planner
P O Box 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018
Mailinq Address
3230 King St. NE
Roanoke, VA 24012
3659 Orange Ave., NE
Roanoke, VA 24012
Bobby Dillon, Wildwood Civic League
Phillip McDermont~ Wildwood Civic L~ague
Martha Pace Franklin
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, in the City of
Roanoke, Virginia, this 24th day of March, 2004.
Notary Public ~'
My Commission Expires: ¢,~--¢,,~0¢'-~/''2
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY OF ROANOKE PLANNING
COMMISSION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The City of Roanoke Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on
Thursday, April 15, 2004, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon as the matter may be heard, in
the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215
Church Avenue, S.W., to consider the following:
Request from Fudds of S.W.VA., Inc., represented by Maryellen F.
Goodlatte, attorney, that property located at 3659 Orange Avenue, N.E.,
bearing Official Tax No. 7110122, be rezoned from RS-3, Residential
Single Family District, to C-2, General Commercial District, such rezoning
to be subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner.
A copy of the application is available for review in the Department of
Planning Building and Development, Room 166, Noel C. Taylor Municipal
Building.
All parties in interest and citizens may appear on the above date and be
heard on the matter. If you are a person who needs accommodations for this
hearing, please contact the Department of Planning Building and Development at
853-1730 before 12:00 noon on the Monday before the date of the hearing listed
above.
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary
City of Roanoke Planning Commission
Please print in newspaper on Tuesday, March 30, and April 6, 2004.
Please bill:
Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Esq.
Glenn, Feldmann, Darby & Goodlatte
P O Box 2887
Roanoke, VA 24001-2997
(540) 224-8018
Please send affidavit of publication to:
Martha P. Franklin, Department of Planning Building & Development
Room 166, Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24011 (540) 853-1730
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clcrk~ci.roanoke.va.us
March 8, 2004
File #51
STEPHANIE M, MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
Robert B. Manetta, Chair
City Planning Commission
2831 Stephenson Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dear Mr. Manetta:
Pursuant to Section 36.1-690(e) of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, I
am enclosing copy of a third amended petition received in the City Clerk's Office on
March 4, 2004, from Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Attorney, representing FUDDS of S.W.VA.,
INC., requesting Amendment of Proffered Conditions in connection with rezoning of a tract
of land located at 3659 Orange Avenue, N. E., Official Tax No. 7110122, containing 3.130
acres, more or less; and a tract of land fronting 52.13 feet on Mexico Way, N. E., and
70.78 feet on Orange Avenue, being 1.147 acre of a larger parcel of land, identified as
Official Tax No. 7110105, from RS-3, Residential Single-Family District, to C-2, General
Commercial District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner.
/~ a.,,.~ ~.Sincerely, ~F.o~
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:sm
Enclosures
HSRezonings - Street Alley Closings 03~rezonings 03\october\third amendment 3659 Orange Ave, N. E.wpd
Robe~ B. Mane~a
March 8,2004
Page 2
pc~
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council
Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Attorney, Glenn, Feldmann, Darby & Goodlatte, P. O. Box
2887, Roanoke, Virginia 24001
Susan S. Lower, Director, Real Estate Valuation
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer
Ronald L. Smith, Building Commissioner
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE~ VIRGINIA
IN RE:.
Rezoning of (I) a tract of land located at 3659 Orange Avenue, N.E. containing 3.130 acres,
identified and being all of official Tax Map Number 7110122; and (2) a tract of land
fronting 52.13 feet on Mexico Way, N.E. and fronting 70.78 feet on Orange Avenue, being
1.147 acres of a larger parcel, which larger parcel is official Tax Map Number 7110105
from RS-3, Residential Single-Family District, to C-2, General Commercial District, such
rezoning to be subject to certain conditions.
THIRD AMENDED PETITION
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR A_ND IVIEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE C1TY OF
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA:
Petitioner FUDDS OF S.W.VA., INC., owns real property in the City of Roanoke, Virginia,
contahxing 3.130 acres, more or less, located at 3659 Orange Avenue, N.E. and being Tax Map
Number 7110122. The property is currently zoned RS-3, Residential Single-Family District.
Petitioner has contracted to purchase 1.147 acres of property from Parlc, vay Wesleyan Church, Inc.,
which property is also currently zoned RS-3, Residential Single-Family District. That 1.147 acre
parcel is a portion of a larger parcel owned by Parkway Wesleyan Church, Inc. A metes and
bounds description of the 1.147 acre parcel is attached as Exhibit A. A map of the property to be
rezoned is attached as Exhibit B.
Pursuant to Section 36.1-690, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, Petitioner
requests that the said property be rezoned fi.om RS-3, Residential Single-Family Disa-ict, to C-2,
General Commercial District, subject to certain conditions set forth below, for the purpose of
permitting a restaurant on the property. The conceptual development plan prepared by Lumsden
Associates, P.C., dated March 2, 2004, is attached hereto as Exhibit C ("Development Plan").
Your petitioner believes the rezoning of the property will further the intent and purposes of
the City's Zo~ng Ordinance and Vision 2001-2020 Comprehensive Plan. This property is located
along and would be oriented toward Orange Avenue. This project will promote quality
development and good use along the Orange Avenue commercial corridor, and would permit tltis
parcel to be used for commercial purposes consistent with its C-2 neighbors.
Your petitioner hereby proffers and agrees that if the said tract is rezoned as requested, that
the following uses shall not be permitted on the property:
1. Outdoor advertising subject to the requirements of sections 36.1-440 et seq.; and
2. Automobile repair establishments including painting and body shops.
Attached as Exkibit D are the names, addresses and tax numbers of the owners of all lots or
properties immediately adjacent to, immediately across a street or road t~om the property to be
rezoned.
WHEREFORE, your Petitioner requests that the above-described tract be rezoned as
requested in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roanoke.
This Third Amended Petition is respectfully submitted this ~/ day of March, 2004.
FUDDS OF S.W.VA., INC.,
a Virg/nia corporation
Of Counsel
Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Esq.
Glenn, Feldmann, Darby & Goodlatte
210 Ist Street, S.W., Suite 200
P. O. Box 2887
Roanoke, Virgin/a 24001-2887
(540) 224-8018 - Telephone
(540) 224-8050 - Facsimile
2
03/84/2004 ,ZZ: 87 5487254498 VTC, f'4¢,C OFFZOES S,~LE
FLrDD,~ OF S.W.VA., I~C., a Vir¢~a corpo~tion, ow~ar oft~e ptope~ Su~jact 'to t~is g~litlon,
h~rCby coca,lira ~o this third ~mlelld~t p~it~on in¢lU~ng tha volu~t~, pr~ff~r~ co~lt~in~d h~r~ill.
Parkway Wesleyan Church, Inc., .a Virginia corporation, Owner of the property subject to this
petition, hereby consent to this third amended petition including the voluntary proffers contained
herein.
PARKWAY WESLEYAN CHURCH, INC.
4
EXHIBIT A
METES & BOUNDS
1.147 Acres
The following is a description of a 1.147 acre parcel for purpose of rezoning, said parcel being a
portion of Tax Parcel #7110105, property of Parkway Wesleyan Church, Inc., situated along
U.S. Route 460 (Orange Avenue) and the terminus of Mexico Way, NE, more partially described
as follows;
Beginning at the common comer of the property of Member One Federal Credit Union and the
property of Parkway Wesleyan Church, Inc., said point lying on the southerly right-of-way of
U.S. Route 460 (Orange Avenue) being the POINT OF BEGINNING of the herein described
1.147 acre parcel, thence leaving the said property of Member One Federal Credit Union and
continuing with the common line of the aforesaid southerly right-of-way of U.S. Route 460
(Orange Avenue), the property of Parkway Wesleyan Church, Inc. and the herein described
1.147 acre parcel, N 41° 59' 12" E, a distance of 70.78 feet to a point, said point being the
common comer of the propcn:ty of FUDDS of S.W. VA., Inc. and the property of Parkway
Wesleyan Church, Inc.; thence with the common line of the said property of FUDDS of S.W.
VA., Inc. and the property of Parkway Wesleyan Church, Inc and the herein described 1.147 acre
parcel, the following two (2) courses; thence $ 69° 24' 24" E, a distance of 545.07 feet to a
point; thence N 59° 13' 26" E, a distance of 83.23 feet to a point; thence leaving the said
property of FUDDS of S.W. VA., Inc. and continuing with the herein described 1.147 acre
parcel and a new division line through the aforesaid property of Parkway Wesleyan Church, Inc.,
S 41° 59' 12" ~', a distance of 498.65 feet to a point, said point lying at the terminus of the
easterly right-of-way of Mexico Way, NE; thence with ttie common line of the said easterly
right-of-way of Mexico Way, NE, the aforesaid property of Parkway Wesleyan Church, Inc. and
the herein described 1.147 acre parcel the following two (2) courses; thence 33.92 feet along the
arc of a curve, having a radius of50. O0 feet, a delta of 38o 52' 25" and a chord of N44o 57' 40"
t4z, 33.28 feet to a point; thence N 64° 23' 53" }~z, a distance of 18.21 feet to a point, said point
being the common comer of the property of Rancho Mexico Business Park, the aforesaid
property of Parkway Wesleyan Church, Inc. and the herein described 1.147 acre parcel; thence
leaving the aforesaid easterly right-of-way of Mexico Way, NE and continuing with the said
common line of the property of Rancho Mexico Business Park, the property of Parkway
Wesleyan Church, Inc. and the herein described 1.147 acre parcel, to following five (5) courses;
thence N 41o 59,1 ,, .
2 E, a distance of 272.95 feet to a point; thence 73.53 feet along the arc ora
curve to the left, having a radius ofSO. O0 feet, a delta of 84o 15' 32" and a chord of N O0° 08'
34" ~V, 67.08 feet to a point; thence N 54° 49' 47" }F, a distance of 20.63 feet to a point; thence
112.14 feet along the arc ora curve to the left, having a radius of 430.00 feet, a delta of14o 56'
34" and a chord of N 62° 18' 04" V~', 111.83 feet to a point; thence N 69° 46' 21" W, passing a
common comer of the property of Member One Federal Credit Union and the aforesaid property
o£Rancho Mexico Business Park at a distance of 76.61 feet, in all a distance of 314.29 feet to a
point; thence with the common line of the said property of Member One Federal Credit Union
and the aforesaid property of Parkway Wesleyan Church, Inc. and the herein described 1.147
acre parcel; thence 29. 78 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 25.00 feet, a
delta of 68° 14' 27" and a chord of S 76° 06' 26" W, 28.05 feet to a point, said point being the
POINT OF BEGINNING containing 1.147 acres more or less.
90iO~IZ
tt'~IOIIZ
g~lOIIZ '
I
I
91/.,
I
I
I I
-"
%
¥INID~IIA '3r~Ol'~t'Olt
S'83NNV'1d-S'aO/~ aA~l FIS~SI:133N 19N 3
'3'd 'S3£VI3OS-'SV.N3(ISIAIfI'I
/ ,
,/
ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS
FUDDS OF S.W.VA., INC.
Tax Parcel Number 7110122
3659 Orange Avenue, N.E., Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Tax Map Number
7110107
7110108
7110109
7110110
7110121
7110111
7110112
Owner(s)/Address
Albert L. Turner
Nancy H. Turner
3744 Carson Road, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
David Johnson
Kimberly Johnson
3730 Carson Road, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Herbert Ray Tolley
Norma Jean Tolley
226 East Cleveland Avenue
Vinton, Virginia 24179
Paul E. Kniffel
Patricia R. Kniffel
3702 Belle Avenue, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Parkway Wesleyan Church, Inc.
3230 King Street, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Joseph D. Whitt
Fay G. Whitt
3698 Belle Avenue, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Bonnie S. Brizendine
3692 Belle Avenue, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
7110113
Karen L. Mason
Miehele L. Cefola
3686 Belle Avenue, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
7110114
Wendell F. Brown
Faye J. Brown
3662 Belle Avenue, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
7110116
Lorie G. Diamond
Charles M. Sutterfield
3650 Belle Avenue, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
7110117
Emest C. Akers
Joyce A. Akers
3638 Belle Avenue, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
7110118
James E. Clark, Jr.
Susan L. Clark
3626 Belle Avenue, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
7110119
Bobby R. Combs
Martha Lynn Combs
3602 Belle Avenue, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
7110120
7110105
7060150
Bobby R. Combs
Martha Lynn Combs
3602 Belle Avenue, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Parkway Wesleyan Church, Inc.
3230 King Street, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Bulwark Industries, LLC
P. O. Box 10731
Roanoke, Virginia 24022
7060151
Bulwark Industries, LLC
P. O. Box 10731
Roanoke, Virginia 24022
7100401
Mark Edward Lynch
Lois B. Lynch
3538 Belle Avenue, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
7100327
Charles C. Crockett
Victoria L. Jackson
3305 Ridgemn Drive, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
7100326
Daniel K. Myers
Angela D. Myers
3311 Ridgerun Drive, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
7100325
Melody T. Jones
3319 Ridgerun Drive, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
7100324
Patricia B. Carter
3325 Ridgerun Drive, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
7100323
Todd A. Hartman
Alisha D. Hartman
3331 Ridgemn Drive, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
7100322
Debra B. Short
3337 Ridgemn Drive, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
7100321
7100320
Rhonda L. Cagle
3343 Ridgemn Drive, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Evelynne R. Rash
131 Shady Lane
Rocky Mount,Virginia 24151
7100319
7100318
Billy L. Eldreth
Phyllis J. Eldreth, Trustees
3355 Ridgemn Drive, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Margaret R. McKinney
3361 Ridgemn Drive, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
7100722
Fralin & Waldron, Inc.
P. O. Box 20069
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
7100723
Fralin & Waldron, Inc.
P. O. Box 20069
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
7100724
Fralin & Waldron, Inc.
P, O. Box 20069
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
7100710
Moriah Church
3521 Orange Avenue, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
7100707
Phil Orb Johns, Executor
2206 Patterson Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
7110102
Phil Orb Johns
2206 Patterson Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 240'16
7110104
Trustees Grace & Troth Baptist Church
3545 Orange Avenue, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
7110127
M K Virginia Company
391 Edgewood Drive
Meadville, Pennsylvania 16335
7110126
David H. Luther, et als
Attention: D. Gentry
P. O. Box 1117
Bowling Green, Kentucky 42102
7110125
Member One Federal Credit Union
202 Fourth Street, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
7160102
City Of Roanoke, Virginia
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 250
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
7160113
City of Roanoke
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 250
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
7110106
Evelyn Keister Gish
3659 Orange Avenue, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
ROANOKE COUNTY
ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS
Tax Map Number
050.01-01-01.00
Owner
R & J Enterprises, LLC
c/o Todd Ross
5257 Dresden Lane
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
050.01-06-06.00
050.01-06-07.00
050.01-06-08.00
050.01-06-09.00
050.01-06-10.00
050.01-06-34.00
050.01-06-35.00
050.01-06-36.00
Becky F. Vassar
3741 Evan Lane
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Geraldine Dooley Sink
135 Fugate Road, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Mark E. Geary
3749 Evan Lane
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Shirley B. Stanton
1218 Kerns Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Christy D. Scott
3757 Evan Lane
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
R & J Enterprises, LLC
c/o W. Todd Ross
5257 Dresden Lane
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
R & J Enterprises, LLC
c/o W. Todd Ross
5257 Dresden Lane
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
R & J Enterprises, LLC
c/o W. Todd Ross
050.01-06-37.00
050.01-06-38.00
050.01-06-26.00
050.01-01-05.00
050.01-05-29.00
050.01-01-34.00
050,01-01-33.00
050.01-01-32.00
5257 Dresden Lane
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
R & J Enterprises, LLC
c/o W. Todd Ross
5257 Dresden Lane
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
R & J Enterprises, LLC
e/o W. Todd Ross
5257 Dresden Lane
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Robin B. Smith
3846 Evan Lane
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Integrity Windows, Inc.
P. O. Box 100
Warroad, Minnesota 56763
Timothy D. Greenway
Paula D. Greenway
3504 Apricot Trail
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Harold B. Hodges
Hazel G. Hodges
3754 Autumn Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Harold B. Hodges
Hazel G. Hodges
3754 Autumn Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Harold B. Hodges
Hazel G. Hodges
3754 Autumn Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
050.01-01-31.00
050.01-01-30.00
050.01-01-29.00
050.01-01-28.00
050.01-01-13.01
Harold B. Hodges
Hazel G. Hodges
3754 Autumn Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Harold B. Hodges
Hazel G. Hodges
3754 Autumn Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Harold B. Hodges
Hazel G. Hodges
3754 Autumn Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Harold B. Hodges
Hazel G. Hodges
3754 Autumn Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Joseph K. Bushnell
Virginia A. Bushnell
3716 Autumn Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
TO THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
PERTAINING TO THE REZONING REQUEST OF:
Fudds of SW Va, Inc., at 3659 Oran(
Tax No. 7110122 from RS-3 to C-2
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF ROANOKE
le Avenue, N.E. )
conditional ) AFFIDAVIT
TO-WIT:
The affiant, Martha Pace Franklin, first being duly sworn, states that she is Secretary
to the Roanoke City Planning Commission, and as such is competent to make this
affidavit of her own personal knowledge. Affidavit states that, pursuant to the
provisions of Section 15.2-2204, Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended, on behalf of the
Planning Commission of the City of Roanoke, she has sent by first-class mail on the
18th day of February, 2004, notices of a public hearing to be held on the 18th day of
March, 2004, on the rezoning captioned above to the owner or agent of the parcels
listed below at their last known address:
Parcel
Owner's Name
Mailing Address
7110105
Parkway Wesleyan Church.
3230 King Street, NE
Roanoke, VA 24012
7110106
Evelyn Keister Gish
3659 Orange Avenue, NE
Roanoke, VA 24012
7160113 City of Roanoke
Also mailed to:
Bobby Dillon, Wildwood Civic League
Phillip McDermont, Wildwood Civic League
Janet Scheid, Roanoke County
Marth~ Pace Franklin
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, in the City of Roanoke,
Virginia, this 18th day of February, 2004.
Notary Public ~'
My Commission Expires: ~-¢,O, ~'-O ~
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011 - 1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fox: (540) 853-1 t45
E-mail: ¢lerk(~ci.roanoke.va.us
February 17, 2004
File #51
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
Robert B. Manetta, Chair
City Planning Commission
2831 Stephenson Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dear Mr. Marietta:
Pursuant to Section 36.1-690(e) of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, I
am enclosing copy of a second amended petition received in the City Clerk's Office on
February 11, 2004, from Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Attorney, representing FUDDS of
S.W.V.A., INC., requesting Amendment of Proffered Conditions in connection with
rezoning of a parcel of land located at 3659 Orange Avenue, N. E., Official Tax No.
7110122, containing 3.130 acres, more or less, from RS-3, Residential Single-Family
District, to C-2, General Commercial District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the
petitioner.
~, ~ j~,, ~,~t&,,-~Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:sm
Enclosures
H:~Rezonings - Street Alley Closings 03~'ezonings 03~october~second amendment 3659 Orange Ave, N. E.wpd
Robert B. Manetta
February 17, 2004
Page 2
pc:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council
Man/ellen F. Goodlatte, Attorney, Glenn, Feldmann, Darby & Goodlatte, P. O. Box
2887, Roanoke, Virginia 24001
Susan S. Lower, Director, Real Estate Valuation
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer
Ronald L. Smith, Building Commissioner
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE~ VIRGINIA
IN RE:
Rezoning of one tract of land located at 3659 Orange Avenue, N.E., identified as official Tax
Map Number 7110122, from RS-3, Residential Single-Family District, to C-2, General
Commercial District, such rezoning to be subject to certain conditions.
SECOND AMENDED PETITION
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA:
Petitioner FUDDS OF S.W.VA., INC., owns real property in the City of Roanoke, Virginia,
containing 3.130 acres, more or less, located at 3659 Orange Avenue, N.E. and being Tax Map
Number 7110122. The property is currently zoned RS-3, Residential Single-Family District. A
map of the property to be rezoned is attached as Exhibit A.
Pursuant to Section 36.1-690, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, Petitioner
requests that the said property be rezoned from RS-3, Residential Single-Family District, to C-2,
General Commercial District, subject to certain conditions set forth below, for the purpose of
permitting a restaurant on the property. The conceptual development plan prepared by Lumsden
Associates, P.C., dated February 4, 2004, is attached hereto as Exhibit B ("Development Plan").
Your petitioner believes the rezoning of the property will further the intent and purposes of
the City's Zoning Ordinance and Vision 2001-2020 Comprehensive Plan. This property is located
along and would be oriented toward Orange Avenue. This project will promote quality
development and good use along the Orange Avenue commercial corridor, and would permit this
parcel to be used for commercial purposes consistent with its C-2 neighbors.
Your petitioner hereby proffers and agrees that if the said tract is rezoned as requested, that
the following uses shall not be permitted on the property:
1. Outdoor advertising subject to the requirements of sections 36.1-440 et seq.; and
2. Automobile repair establishments including painting and body shops.
Attached as Exhibit C are the names, addresses and tax numbers of the owners of all lots or
properties immediately adjacent to, immediately across a street or road from the property to be
rezoned.
WHEREFORE, your Petitioner requests that the above-described tract be rezoned as
requested in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roanoke.
This Second Amended Petition is respectfully submitted this /O t~ day of February, 2004.
FUDDS OF S.W.VA., INC.,
a Virginia corporation
t~ Of Counsel
Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Esq.
Glenn, Feldmann, Darby & Goodlatte
210 1st Street, S.W., Suite 200
P. O. Box 2887
Roanoke, Virginia 24001-2887
(540) 224-8018 - Telephone
(540) 224-8050 - Facsimile
mgoodlatte@gfdg.com
2
6LE't~I,FELDM~qr'4 Fa×:5,~0-224-S050 Feb 5 200~ 17:2,2
FIX)DS 0r S,W.VA., L"qC., a Vlr//nia wrporation, owng of the prope~y ~ubJec: to this petition,
hereby consents to this s~cond amcndc~d p~tition ~cluding th= voluntary pwffer~ cotltaine, d herein.
FUDDS OF $.W.VA,, iNC.
[7!
.7,
(~ o
I
11
I
II
~ II
I I
o I
I~1
I
I
I I
L ZI AC.
7110/~
'3~.d '$3£V130SS¥ N3OSIAIflq
:'/I:
//
X
/
/
ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS
FUDDS OF S.W.VA., INC.
Tax Parcel Number 7110122
3659 Orange Avenue, N.E., Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Tax Map Number
Owner(s)/Address
7110106
Evelyn Keister Gish
3659 Orange Avenue, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
7110105
Parkway Wesleyan Church, Inc.
3230 King Street, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
7160102
7160113
City of Roanoke
215 Church Avenue, Room 250
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
I
TO THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
PERTAINING TO THE REZONING REQUEST OF:
Fudds of SW Va, Inc., at 3659 Orange Avenue, N.E. )
Tax No. 7110122 from RS-3 to C-2, conditional ) AFFIDAVIT
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA )
) TO-WIT:
CITY OF ROANOKE )
The affiant, Martha Pace Franklin, first being duly sworn, states that she is Secretary
to the Roanoke City Planning Commission, and as such is competent to make this
affidavit of her own personal knowledge. Affidavit states that, pursuant to the
provisions of Section 15.2-2204, Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended, on behalf of the
Planning Commission of the City of Roanoke, she has sent by first-class mail on the
18~h day of November, 2003, notices of a public hearing to be held on the 18th day of
December, 2003, on the rezoning captioned above to the owner or agent of the parcels
listed below at their last known address:
Parcel
7110105
7110106
7160113
Owner's Name
Carpenters Foundation Inc.
Evelyn Keister Gish
City of Roanoke
Mailin~
3230 King Street, NE
Roanoke, VA 24012
3659 Orange Avenue, NE
Roanoke, VA 24012
Notice Also Mailed to: Roanoke County
Janet Scheid, Chief Planner
P O Box 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018
Bobby Dillon, Wildwood Civic League
Phillip McDermont, Wildwood Civic League
Mart'ha Pace Franklin
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public. in the City of Roanoke,
Virginia, this 18th day of November, 2003. '
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
F~x: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk~ci.roanoke.v~us
October 9, 2003
File #51
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
Robed B. Manetta, Chair
City Planning Commission
2831 Stephenson Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dear Mr. Manetta:
Pursuant to Section 36.1-,,6_9..0(e).~ the Code of the City of ,R, oanoke (1979) as amended
I am enclosing copy offence ved in the City C erk s Office on October 2, 2003,
from Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Attorney, representing FUDDS of S.W.V.A., INC., requesting
Amendment of Proffered Conditions in connection with rezoning of a parcel of land located
at 3659 Orange Avenue, N. E., Official Tax No. 7110122, containing 3.130 acres, more or
less, from RS-3, Residential Single-Family District, to C-2, General Commercial District,
subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner.
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ew
Enclosures
H:\Rezonings - Street Alley Closings 03~rezonings 03\october~rezoning amendment 3659 orange ne goodlatte.wpd
Robed B. Manetta
October9,2003
Page 2
pc:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council
Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Attorney, Glenn, Feldmann, Darby & Goodlatte, P. O. Box
2887, Roanoke, Virginia 24001
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Susan S. Lower, Acting Director, Real Estate Valuation
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
H:\Rezonings - Street Alley Closings 03h'ezonings 03\october~rezoning amendment 3659 orange ne goodlatte.wpd
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
IN RE:
Rezoning of one tract of land located at 3659 Orange Avenue, N.E., identified as official Tax
Map Number 7110122, from RS-3, Residential Single-Family District, to C-2, General
Commercial District, such rezoning to be subject to certain conditions.
AMENDED PETITION
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA:
Petitioner FUDDS OF S.W.VA., INC., owns real property in the City of Roanoke, Virginia,
containing 3.130 acres, more or less, located at 3659 Orange Avenue, N.E. and being Tax Map
Number 7110122. The property is currently zoned RS-3, Residential Single-Family District. A
map of the property to be rezoned is attached as Exhibit A.
Pursuant to Section 36.1-690, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, Petitioner
requests that the said property be rezoned from RS-3, Residential Single-Family District, to C-2,
General Commemial District, subject to certain conditions set forth below, for the purpose of
permitting a restaurant on the property. The conceptual development plan prepared by Lumsden
Associates, P.C., dated September 29, 2003, is attached hereto as Exhibit B ("Development Plan").
Your petitioner believes the rezoning of the property will further the intent and purposes of
the City's Zoning Ordinance and Vision 2001-2020 Comprehensive Plan. This property is located
along and would be oriented toward Orange Avenue. This project will promote quality
development and good use along the Orange Avenue commercial corridor, and would permit this
parcel to be used for commercial purposes consistent with its C-2 neighbors.
property.
3.
Your petitioner hereby proffers and agrees that if the said tract is rezoned as requested, that
the rezoning will be subject to, and that it will abide by, the following conditions:
1. The property shall be used only as a restaurant.
There shall be no more than one (1) curb cut on Orange Avenue serving the
There shall be no more than one freestanding sign for the restaurant.
Attached as Exhibit C are the names, addresses and tax nUmbers of the owners of all lots or
properties immediately adjacent to, immediately across a street or road from the property to be
rezoned.
WHEREFORE, your Petitioner requests that the above-described tract be rezoned as
requested in accordance with the provisions o£the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roanoke.
This Amended Petition is respectfully submitted this 3rd day of October, 2003.
FUDDS OF S.W.VA., INC.,
a Virginia corporation
O Of Counsel
Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Esq.
Glenn, Feldmann, Darby & Goodlatte
210 1st Street, S.W., Suite 200
P. O. Box 2887
Roanoke, Virginia 24001-2887
(540) 224-8018 - Telephone
(540) 224-8050 - Facsimile
mgoodlatte~gfdg.com
10/~3/2003 12:57 5407254490 VIAMAC OFFICES SALE PAGE
GL£1~FELDMAN Fax~S~O-?24-$O$O Oc~ ~ 200~ 15:51 P. D4
t~q. JDDS OF S,W,V.% INC., a Virgima corporation, own*r of*he prop~-~y mbJ~ct ~o tbie petition,
hereby con~mr~ to ~ia am~cl,d petit/on inolud/ng the voluntary proffer,, ~,outained'.herei.n.
3
r~
'%.
ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS
FUDDS OF S.W.VA., INC.
Tax Parcel Number 7110122
3659 Orange Avenue, N.E., Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Tax Map Number
7110106
Owner(s)/Address
Evelyn Keister Gish
3659 Orange Avenue, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
7110105
Carpenters Foundation, Inc.
3230 King Street, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
7160102
7160113
City of Roanoke
215 Church Avenue, Room 250
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
MARY F. PARKER. CMC
Cily Clerk
CITY OF ROANOIO*.
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., l~oom 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011 - 1536
Telephone: (540) 853=2541
F~tx: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk(~ci.roanoke.va.u$
October 3, 2003
File #51
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
Robert B. Manetta, Chair
City Planning Commission
2831 Stephenson Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dear Mr. Manetta:
Pursuant to Section 36.1-690(e) of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended,
I am enclosing copy of a petition received in the City Clerk's Office on October 2, 2003,
from Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Attorney, representing FUDDS of S.W.V.A., INC., requesting
that property containing 3.130 acres, more or less, located at 3659 Orange Avenue, N. E.,
Official Tax No. 7110122, be rezoned from RS-3, Residential Single-Family District, to C-2,
General Commercial District subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ew
Enclosures
H:~Rezonings - Street Alley Closings 03Xrezonings 03\octoberXrezoning 3659 orange ave ne goodlane.wpd
Robe~ B. Manetta
O~ober3,2003
Page 2
pc:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council
Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Attorney, Glenn, Feldmann, Darby & Goodlatte, P. O. Box
2887, Roanoke, Virginia 24001
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Susan S. Lower, Acting Director, Real Estate Valuation
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
J. Frederick Gusler, City Planner II
H:~.ezonings - Street A]]ey Closings 03h'ezonings 03\october~rezoning 3659 orange ave ne goodlane.wpd
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
IN RE:
Rezoning of one tract of land located at 3659 Orange Avenue, N.E., identified as official Tax
Map Number 7110122, from RS-3, Residential Single-Family District, to C-2, General
Commercial District, such rezoning to be subject to certain conditions.
PETITION
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA:
Petitioner FUDDS OF S.W.VA., INC., owns real property in the City of Roanoke, Virginia,
containing 3.130 acres, more or less, located at 3659 Orange Avenue, N.E. and being Tax Map
Number 7110122. The property is currently zoned RS-3, Residential Single-Family District. A
map of the property to be rezoned is attached as Exhibit A.
Pursuant to Section 36.1-690, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, Petitioner
requests that the said property be rezoned from RS-3, Residential Single-Family District, to C-2,
General Commercial District, subject to certain conditions set forth below, for the purpose of
permitting a restaurant on the property. The conceptual development plan prepared by Lumsden
Associates, P.C., dated September 29, 2003, is attached hereto as Exhibit B ("Development Plan').
Your petitioner believes the rezoning of the property will further the intent and purposes of
the City's Zoning Ordinance and Vision 2001-2020 Comprehensive Plan. This property is located
along and would be oriented toward Orange Avenue. This project will promote quality
development and good use along the Orange Avenue commercial corhdor, and would permit this
parcel to be used for commercial purposes consistent with its C-2 neighbors.
Your petitioner hereby proffers and agrees that if the said tract is rezoned as requested, that
the rezoning will be subject to, and that it will abide by, the following condition:
The property will be developed in substantial conformity with the Development Plan made
by Lumsden Associates, P.C., dated September 29, 2003, and attached to this petition as Exhibit B,
subject to any changes required by the City during the Comprehensive Site Plan review.
Attached as Exhibit C are the names, addresses and tax numbers of the owners of all lots or
properties immediately adjacent to, immediately across a street or mad from the property to be
rezoned.
WHEREFORE, your Petitioner requests that the above-described tract be rezoned as
requested in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roanoke.
This Petition is respectfully submitted this a~ t~-~thy of October, 2003'
FUDDS OF S.W. VA., liNC.,
a Virginia corporation
ti Of Counsel
Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Esq.
Glenn, Feldmann, Darby & Goodlatte
210 1st Street, S.W., Suite 200
P. O. Box 2887
Roanoke, Virginia 24001-2887
(540) 224-8018 - Telephone
(540) 224-8050 - Facsimile
mgoodlatte~gfdg.com
2
i~LENN,FELDMAN Fa×:5'~O-?2/~-80bO Ucc, ~ 2ULI..~ ':~ :;~'~ ~, dz
FUDDS OF $.W.VA., INC., a Vir$in/~ COrl~ration, owne~ of the l~mpcr~ ~5j~t.to ~hi~ petition,
hereby ccn~nts to thi~ ~ord,ng iucludini/thc voluntary profl'~r~ contained he~n,
I
T~ACT A
\ 7110106
\ Z.O00 ~c~
\
\
7110123
LZ/ AC.
J,J,E.
ADJOINENG PROPERTY OWNERS
FUDDS OF S.W.VA., INC.
Tax Parcel Number 7110122
3659 Orange Avenue, N.E., Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Tax Map Number
7110106
Owner(s)/Address
Evelyn Keister Gish
3659 Orange Avenue, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
7110105
Carpenters Foundation, Inc.
3230 King Street, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
7160102
7160113
City of Roanoke
215 Church Avenue, Room 250
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
June 1,2004
File #79
The Honorable Sherman A. Holland
Commissioner of the Revenue
Roanoke, Virginia
The Honorable Evelyn W. Powers
City Treasurer
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Powers and Mr. Holland:
I am attaching an executed copy of Ordinance No. 36703-052004 exempting
from real estate taxation certain property owned by the unified Human Services
Transportation System, Inc., located in the City of Roanoke, identified by
Official Tax Nos. 2510106 - 2510117, inclusive.
If you have questions, please feel free to call me.
With kindest regards, I am
Sincerely,
MFP:ew
ry F. Parker, CMC[
City Clerk
Attachment
pc:
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., Attorney, Gentry Locke Rakes & Moore,
P.O. Box40013, Roanoke, Virginia 24022-0013
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Susan S. Lower, Director, Real Estate Valuation
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 20th day of May, 2004.
No. 36703-052004.
AN ORDINANCE exempting from real estate taxation certain property of the Unified
Human Services Transportation System, Inc. (RADAR), located in the City of Roanoke, an
organization devoted exclusively to charitable or benevolent purposes on a non-profit basis;
providing for an effective date; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this
ordinance.
WHEREAS, the Unified Human Services Transportation System, Inc. (RADAR),
(hereinafter the "Applicant"), has petitioned this Council to exempt certain real property of
the Applicant from taxation pursuant to Article X, Section 6(a)(6) of the Constitution of
Virginia;
WHEREAS, a public heating at which all citizens had an opportunity to be heard with
respect to the Applicant's petition was held by Council on May 20, 2004;
WHEREAS, the provisions of subsection B of Section 58.1-3651, Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended, have been examined and considered by the Council;
WHEREAS, the Applicant agrees that the real property to be exempt from taxation is
certain real estate, including the land and any building located thereon, identified by Roanoke
City Tax Map Nos. 2510106 through 2510117, inclusive (the "Property"), and providing that
the Property shall be used by the Applicant exclusively for charitable or benevolent purposes
on a non-profit basis; and
WHEREAS, in consideration of Council's adoption of this Ordinance, the Applicant
has voluntarily agreed to pay each year a service charge in an amount equal to twenty percent
(20%) of the City of Roanoke's real estate tax levy, which would be applicable to the
Property were the Property not exempt from such taxation, for so long as the Property is
exempted from such taxation;
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. Council classifies and designates the Unified Human Services Transportation
System, Inc. (RADAR), as a charitable or benevolent organization within the context of
Section 6(a)(6) of Article X of the Constitution of Virginia, and hereby exempts from real
estate taxation certain real estate, including the land and any building located thereon,
identified by Roanoke City Tax Map Nos. 2510106 through 2510117, inclusive, owned by
the Applicant, which property is used exclusively for charitable or benevolent purposes on a
non-profit basis; continuance of this exemption shall be contingent on the continued use of
the property in accordance with the purposes which the Applicant has designated in this
Ordinance.
2.
In consideration of Council's adoption of this Ordinance, the Applicant agrees
to pay to the City of Roanoke on or before October 5 of each year a service charge in an
amount equal to twenty (20%) percent of the City of Roanoke's real estate tax levy which
would be applicable to the Property, were the Property not exempt from such taxation, for so
long as the Property is exempted from such taxation.
3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect on July I, 2004, if by such time
a copy, duly executed by an authorized officer of the Applicant, has been filed with the City
Clerk.
4. The City Clerk is directed to forward an attested copy of this Ordinance, after it
is properly executed by the Applicant, to the Commissioner of the Revenue and the City
Treasurer for purposes of assessment and collection, respectively, of the service charge
established by this Ordinance, and to Curtis A. Andrews, Executive Director, of Unified
Human Services Transportation System, Inc. (RADAR).
5, Pursuant to Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance
by title is hereby dispensed with.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
ACCEPTED, AGREED TO AND EXECUTED by Unified Human Services
Transportation System, Inc. (RADAR), this o~ 72~day of ,/~t~ ~] ,2004.
UNIFIED HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM, INC. (RADAR)
BY ~') ~xExe~ector~ (SEAL)
540.983.9300
Facsimile 540.gR3.gz~O0
Direct Dial: (540) 983-9370
will_dibling~gentrylocke.com
GENTRY LOCKE
RAKES & MCIDRE
A Limited Liabihty Partnership
May 27, 2004
10 Franklin Road, S E
Fost Office Box 40013
Roanoke, Virginia 24022 0013
www gentrylocke corn
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, VA 24011-1536
Re:
Ordinance No. 36703-0520004 Exempting from Real Estate Taxation Certain
Property of the Unified Human Services Transportation System, Inc. (RADAR)
Dear Mary:
We are enclosing a copy of the above-referenced Ordinance which has been accepted, agreed to
and executed by Curtis A. Andrews, an authorized representative of Unified Human Services
Transportation System, Inc., prior to July 1, 2004, as required by paragraph 3 of the Ordinance.
The tax exemption for the organization, therefore, will be effective July 1,2004.
Thank you for filing this document on behalf of our client.
With kindest personal regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
GENTRYt~OCKE RAKES & MOORE
I
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr.
WCDjr/bd
Enclosure
CC:
William H. Hackworth, Esq.
Mr. Curtis A. Andrews
6618/6/1157535.1
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011 - 1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-I 145
E-mail: clerk@cl, roanoke.va.us
May 24, 2004
File #79
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr.
Gentry Locke Rakes & Moore
P. O. Box 40013
Roanoke, Virginia 24022-0013
Dear Mr. Dibling:
I am enclosing two certified copies of Ordinance No. 36703-052004 exempting
from real estate taxation certain property of the Unified Human Services
Transportation System, Inc. (RADAR), located in the City of Roanoke, an
organization devoted exclusively to charitable or benevolent purposes on a non-
profit basis, effective July 1, 2004.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
at a regular meeting which was held on Thursday, 20, 2004.
Please note that the abovereferenced ordinance must be executed by an
authorized agent of the applicant and filed in the City Clerk's Office no later than
June 30, 2004.
With kindest regards,
Sincerely,
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SMM:ew
Enclosure
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr.
May 24, 2004
Page 2
pc:
The Honorable Evelyn W. Powers, City Treasurer
The Honorable Sherman A. Holland, Commissioner of the Revenue
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Susan S. Lower, Director, Real Estate Valuation
Sherman M. Stovall, Acting Director, Office of Management and Budget
1N THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 20th day of May, 200/4.
No. 36703-052004.
AN ORDINANCE exempting from real estate taxation certain propen3' of the Unified
Human Services Transportation System, Inc. (RADAR), located in the City of Roanoke, an
organization devoted exclusively to charitable or benevolent purposes on a non-profit basis;
providing for an effective date; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this
ordinance.
WHEREAS, the Unified Human Services Transportation System, Inc. (RADAR),
(hereinafter the "Applicant"), has petitioned this Council to exempt certain real property of
the Applicant from taxation pursuant to Article X, Section 6(a)(6) of the Constitution of
Virginia;
WHEREAS, a public hearing at which alt citizens had an opportunity to be heard w/th
respect to the Applicant's petition was held by Council on May 20, 2004;
WHEREAS, the provisions of subsection B of Section 58.1-3651, Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended, have been examined and considered by the Council;
WHEREAS, the Applicant agrees that the real property to be exempt from taxation is
certain real estate, including the land and any building located thereon, identified by Roanoke
City Tax Map Nos. 2510106 through 2510117, inclusive (the "Property"), and providing that
the Property shall be used by the Applicant exclusively for charitable or benevolent purposes
on a non-profit basis; and
WHEREAS, in consideration of Council's adoption of this Ordinance, the Applicant
has voluntarily agreed to pay each year a service charge in an amount equal to twenty percent
(20%) of the City of Roanoke's real estate tax levy, which would be applicable to the
Property were the Property not exempt from such taxation, for so long as the Property is
exempted from such taxation;
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. Council classifies and designates the Unified Human Services Transportation
System, Inc. (RADAR), as a charitable or benevolent organization within the context of
Section 6(a)(6) of Article X of the Constitution of Virginia, and hereby exempts from real
estate taxation certain real estate, including the land and any building located thereon,
identified by Roanoke City Tax Map Nos. 2510106 through 25 l0117, inclusive, owned by
the Applicant, which property is used exclusively for charitable or benevolent purposes on a
non-profit basis; continuance of this exemption shall be contingent on the continued use of
the property in accordance with the purposes which the Applicant has designated in this
Ordinance.
2. In consideration of Council's adoption of this Ordinance, the Applicant agrees
to pay to the City of Roanoke on or before October 5 of each year a service charge in an
amount equal to twenty (20%) percent of the City of Roanoke's real estate tax levy which
would be applicable to the Property, were the Property not exempt from such taxation, for so
long as the Property is exempted from such taxation.
3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect on July 1,2004, if by such time
a copy, duly executed by an authorized officer of the Applicant, has been filed with the City
Clerk.
4.
The City Clerk is directed to forward an attested copy of this Ordinance, after it
is properly executed by the Applicant, to the Commissioner of the Revenue and the City
Treasurer for purposes of assessment and collection, respectively, of the service charge
established by this Ordinance, and to Curtis A. Andrews, Executive Director, of Unified
Human Services Transportation System, Inc. (RADAR).
5. Pursuant to Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance
by title is hereby dispensed with.
ATTEST:
~"~ City Clerk.
ACCEPTED, AGREED TO AND EXECUTED by Unified Human Services
Transportation System, Inc. (RADAR), this __ day of ,2004.
UNIFIED HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM, INC. (RADAR)
By (~qFAL)
Executive Director
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 364
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591
Telephone: (540) 853-2333
Fax: (540) 853-1138
CityWeb: www.roanokegov.com
May20,2004
Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Vice Mayor
Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member
Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
SubJect:
Tax Exemption Request
from Unified Human
Services Transportation
Systems, Inc., (RADAR)
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council:
Background:
The Unified Human Services Transportation Systems, Inc., which transacts
business as RADAR, owns the property known as Tax Map #s 2510106-
251011 7, inclusive, located between Breckinridge Avenue and Baker
Avenue, NW, Roanoke. The primary purpose of the RADAR is to provide
an efficient and cost-effective transportation system to the elderly,
disabled, indigent, and other persons who may require the provision of
specialized transportation. Annual taxes due for Fiscal Year 2004-2005
are $296.44 on an assessed value of $24,500.
Considerations:
On May 19, 2003, City Council approved a revised policy and procedure
in connection with requests from non-profit organizations for tax
exemption of certain property in the City by Resolution 36331-051903,
adopting the revised Process for Determination of Property Tax
Exemption dated May 19, 2003, with an effective date of January 1,2003.
The Unified Human Services Transportation Systems Inc., (RADAR) has
provided the necessary information required as a result of the
Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
May 20, 2004
Page 2
adjustments made to our revised local policy prior to the deadline of April
15, 2004.
According to the Commissioner of the Revenue's Office, the loss of
revenue to the City will be $237.] 9 after a twenty percent service charge
is levied by the City in lieu of real estate taxes. This service charge will be
$59.25.
Commissioner of Revenue, Sherman Holland, has determined the
organization is currently not exempt from paying real estate taxes by
classification or designation under the Code of Virginia. The IRS
recognizes it as a 501(c) 3 tax-exempt organization.
Notification of a public hearing to be held May 20, 2004, was duly
advertised in the Roanoke Times.
Recommended Action:
Authorize the Unified Humans Services Transportation Systems, Inc.
(RADAR) exemption from real estate property taxation pursuant to Article
X, Section 6 (a) 6 of the Constitution of Virginia, effective July 1,2004, if
the organizations agree to pay the subject service charge by that date.
Respectfully sub~_mitted,
City Manager
DLB/vst
Attachments
C:
Honorable Sherman A. Holland, Commissioner of Revenue
Honorable Evelyn W. Powers, City Treasurer
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Susan S. Lower, Director of Real Estate Valuation
Elizabeth A. Neu, Director of Economic Development
Sherman M. Stovall, Acting Director of Management and Budget
CM04-00076
CITY OF RO_.A. NOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
March 26, 2004
Stephanie M. Moon
Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
William M. Hackworth
City Attorney
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham and Mr. Hackworth:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on Monday,
May 19, 2003, Resolution No. 36331-051903 was adopted with regard to a new policy and
procedure for processing requests from non-profit organizations to have property exempted
from taxation pursuant to Article X, Section 6(a)(6), of the Constitution of Virginia, and
repealing Resolution No. 36148-120202, adopted on December 2, 2002.
I am attaching copy of a petition filed by Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., Attorney, representing the
Unified Human Services Transportation System, Inc. (RADAR), requesting exemption from
taxation of real property, identified as Official Tax Nos. 2510106- 2510109, inclusive, and
2510111-2510117, inclusive, located between Breckinridge Avenue and Baker Avenue,
N. W., in the City of Roanoke, pursuant to Section 30-19.04(B), Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended.
Following a public hearing and appropriate action by Council, petitions forwarded by the
City Clerk to the City Manager by April 15 for evaluation and recommendation to City
Council will have an effective date of July 1st. Petitions forwarded to the City Manager by
October 15th will have an effective date of January 1st.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:sm
Attachment
Darlene L. Burcham
William M. Hackworth
March 26, 2004
Page 2
pc~
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., Attorney, Gentry Locke Rakes and Moore, P. O. Box40013,
Roanoke, Virginia 24022-0013
The Honorable Sherman A. Holland, Commissioner of the Revenue
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Susan S. Lower, Director, Real Estate Valuation
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
IN RE:
PETITION OF UNIFIED HUMAN SERVICES
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, INC. (RADAR)
REQUESTING THAT CITY COUNCIL ADOPT
AN ORDINANCE EXEMPTING ITS REAL
PROPERTY FROM TAXATION
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE:
The Petitioner, Unified Human Services Transportation System, Inc., which
transacts business as RADAR, petitions City Council to adopt an Ordinance granting
RADAR a tax exemption for its real property pursuant to Article X, § 6(a)(6),
Constitution of Virginia, Va. Code Ann. § 58.1-3651 and Resolution No. 36331-051903,
adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia. In support of its Petition,
RADAR states as £ollows:
1. RADAR is a non-profit, tax exempt 501(c)(3) corporation under the
Internal Revenue Code. RADAR was created in 1974 by twenty-four social service
agencies to serve as a non-profit transportation organization. The primary purpose of
RADAR is to provide an efficient and cost-effective transportation system to the elderly,
disabled, indigent, and other persons who may require the provision of specialized
transportation.
2. By Chapter 428 of the 2002 Acts of Assembly, the General Assembly
designated RADAR as a charitable or benevolent organization within the context of §
6(a)(6) o£ Article X of the Constitution of Virginia. The General Assembly further
determined certain of RADAR's real property, identified by official tax map numbers, to
6618/6/1105060.1
be exempt from local taxation as long as such property is used by RADAR exclusively
for charitable or benevolent purposes on a non-profit basis.
3. Subsequently, RADAR acquired additional real property, and RADAR
now petitions City Council for tax exemption of its real property.
4. RADAR hereby provides the information required by Step 2 of City
Council's Policy and Procedure as set forth in Resolution No. 36331-051903:
a. RADAR is a non-profit, tax exempt 501(c)(3) corporation under
the Internal Revenue Code. The primary purpose of RADAR is to provide an efficient
and cost-effective transportation system to the elderly, disabled, indigent, and other
persons who may require the provision of specialized transportation. RADAR seeks
exemption from taxation of its real property.
b. RADAR's property is eligible for tax exemption pursuant to
Article X, § 6(a)(6), Constitution of Virginia, and Va. Code Ann. § 58.1-3651 .A.
c. The Commissioner of Revenue has determined that RADAR is not
already eligible for tax exempt status by classification or designation. A copy of the
written determination of the Commissioner is attached to this Petition as Exhibit A.
d. RADAR agrees to pay to the City an annual service charge equal
to twenty percent of the real estate tax levy that would be applicable to the real property
of RADAR, if RADAR were not exempt from such taxation, for so long as the tax
exemption is in effect.
e. RADAR is not located within a service district of the City.
6618/6/1105060.1
2
f. By Paragraph 5 of this Petition, RADAR provides its detailed
answers to the questions set forth in subsection B of § 58.1-3651, Code of Va. (1950), as
amended.
g. RADAR agrees, if its real property is approved for tax exempt
status, to provide information to the Director of Real Estate Valuation upon request to
allow a triennial review of the tax exempt status of RADAR.
5. RADAR responds to the issues required to be addressed by RADAR,
pursuant to subsection B of§ 58.1-3651, Code of Va. (1950), as amended, as follows:
a. RADAR is exempt from taxation pursuant to § 501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
b. A current annual alcoholic beverage license for serving alcoholic
beverages has not been issued by the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board to
RADAR for use on any of its property.
c. No director, officer, or employee of RADAR is paid compensation
in excess of a reasonable allowance for salaries or other compensation for personal
services which such director, officer, or employee actually renders.
d. No part of the net earnings of RADAR inures to the benefit of any
individual, and no significant portion of the service provided by RADAR is generated by
fimds received from donations or contributions. For the current fiscal year, RADAR
received the following local, state and federal grants:
Local - $ 23,000
State - $244,902
Federal - $494,914
6618/6/1105060.1
3
e. RADAR provides services for the common good of the public.
RADAR is a non-stock, non-profit corporation that was created in 1974 by twenty-four
social service agencies to serve as a non-profit transportation organization. RADAR
contracts with area social service agencies, governments, and other organizations to
provide transportation services for their clients or citizens, primarily in the Roanoke
Valley area. The goals of RADAR are to provide a consolidated system to meet the
varied transportation needs of human service agencies and the general public through
purchase of service agreements. To accomplish its goals, RADAR operates fifty-five
vehicles, two-thirds which are handicapped accessible.
f. No substantial part of the activities of RADAR involves carrying
on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation. RADAR does not
participate in, or intervene in, any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for
public office.
g. Only real property acquired by RADAR after the effective date of
Chapter 428 of' the 2002 Session of the General Assembly is affected by this Petition (the
"After-Acquired Property"). The After-Acquired Property is currently assessed at
$24,500.00 and the annual real estate tax on the After-Acquired Property would be
$296.44. If granted an exemption from real property tax, RADAR would pay the C. ity an
annual service charge equal to twenty percent of the real estate tax levy that would be
applicable to the After-Acquired Property if RADAR were not exempt from real property
taxation. Thus, the revenue impact to the City, based on RADAR's current taxable real
property holdings in the City, would be $237.19.
6618/6/1105060.1
4
h. RADAR has addressed all issues required to be addressed by it
under Resolution No. 36331-051903 and subsection B of § 58.1-3651, Code of Va.
(1950), as amended. RADAR will address any other criteria, facts and circumstances that
City Council deems pertinent to the adoption of an ordinance exempting RADAR's real
property from taxation.
WHEREFORE, RADAR requests that City Council adopt an ordinance
exempting its real property from taxation pursuant to Article X, § 6(a)(6), Constitution of
Virginia, Va. Code Ann. § 58.1-3651, and Resolution No. 36331-051903.
Respectfully submitted this s' ~/~day of March, 2004.
UNIFIED HUMAN SERVICES
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, 1NC.
By: ~/~'
Wilbum C. Dibling, Jr. (VSB No. 01188)
Gentry Locke Rakes & Moore
Post Office Box 40013
Roanoke, Virginia 24022-0013
Phone: 540-983-9370
Fax: 540-983-9468
6618/6/1105060.1
5
COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE
CITY OF ROANOKE
SHERMAN A. HOLLAND
Commissioner
GREGORY S. EMERSON
Chief Deputy
March 3, 2004
Unified Human Services Transpo~Xation System Ine(P, ADAR)
P O Box 13825
Roanoke, Va. 24037
RE: Tax Map Nos 2510106,107,108,109,111,112,113,114,115,116 & 117
Dear Sir:
In regards to the above parcels, they are being taxed by the City of Roanoke for real
estate taxes for the tax year 2003-04.
To be placed on the tax exempt rolls, a form has to be filed with the Roanoke City
Council to get the tax exempt stares.
I hope this is the information that you need, please contact me if you have more
questions.
Sincerely,
Sherman A. Holland
Commissioner of the Revenue
A
215 Church Avenue SW, Room 251 * Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Phone (540)853-2521 * Fax (540)853-1115 * www. ci. roanoke, va. us
Direct Did: (540) 983-9370
will_dibling~gentrylocke.com
GENTRY LOCKE
RAKES & MCE)RE
A Limited Liability Partnership
March 24, 2004
I0 Franklin Road SE
Post Office Box 40013
Roanoke virginia 24022 0013
www gentrylocke corn
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Chumh Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, VA 24011-1536
Re:
Unified Human Services Transportation System, Inc. (RADAR) - Petition for
Real Property Tax Exemption
Dear Mary:
We represent Unified Human Services Transportation System, Inc. (RADAR). By Chapter 428
of the 2002 Acts of Assembly, the General Assembly designated RADAR as a charitable or
benevolent organization and declared certain of RADAR's real property, identified by official
tax map numbers, to be exempt from local taxation. Subsequently, RADAR acquired 12 small
parcels on December 9, 2003, and, by the enclosed Petition, RADAR is requesting tax exemption
for all its real property. The Commissioner of Revenue has advised that the total real property
tax applicable to the properties acquired on December 9, 2003, is $296.44.
We are enclosing a Petition which we believe to comply with Resolution Number 36331-051903,
adopted by City Council on May 19, 2003. RADAR agrees to pay to the City an annual service
charge equal to 20% of the real estate tax levy that would be applicable to the real property of
RADAR, if RADAR were not exempt from such taxation, for so long as the tax exemption is in
effect.
Please advise us when City Council will hold its public hearing with respect to this request.
Should yon h~ve any questions with respect to this matter, please do not hes~.tate to contac~ us.
With kindest personal regards, I am
Sincerely yours,/
Wilbum C. Dibling, Jr.
WCDjr/bd
6618/6/1105111.1
GENTRY LOCKE
RAKES & MOORE
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
March 24, 2004
Page 2
cc: Mr. Curtis A. Andrews
6618~/I105111.1
The Roanoke Times
Roanoke, Virginia
Affidavit of Publication
The Roanoke Times
GENTRY LOCKE RAKES MOORE-DIBLI
10 FRANKLIN RD.
ATTN: WILBURN DIBLIN
ROANOKE VA 24038
REFERENCE: 80072654
02364357 RADAR
State of Virginia
City of Roanoke
I, (the undersigned) an authorized representative
of the Times-World Corporation, which corporation
is publisher of the Roanoke Times, a daily
newspaper published in Roanoke, in the State of
Virginia, do certify that the annexed notice was
published in said newspapers on the following
dates:
City/County of Roanoke, Commonwealth/State of
vi¥~j~ia. Sworn and subscribed before me this
__l__~L~_day of May 2004. Witness my hand and
~'~.~°fficial seal~
[,~[~ ~--~9~_ ~ ~%otary Public
PUBLISHED ON: 05/14
TOTAL COST:
FILED ON:
149.42
05/14/04
Billing Services Representative
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Roanoke will hold a public heating
at its regular meeting to be held on May 20, 2004, commencing at 7:00 p.m., in the Council
Chambers, 4th Floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, {.W., Roanoke,
Virginia on the question of adoption of an ordinance pursuant to §58.1-3651, Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended, approving the request of the Unified Human Services Transportation System,
Inc. (RADAR), for designation of its real estate, including the land and any building thereon,
identified by Roanoke City Tax Map Nos. 2510106 through 2510117, inclusive, located between
Breckenridge Avenue and Baker Avenue, N.W., to be exempted from taxation.
The total assessed value of the applicants' real estate for tax year 2004/2005 is $24,500, with
a total real estate tax assessment of $296.44 due for the 2004/2005 tax year. The loss of revenue will
be $237.19 annually after a 20% service charge is levied in lieu of real estate taxes.
Citizens shall have the opportunity to be heard and express their opinions on this matter.
If you are a person with a disability who needs accommodations for this public hearing,
contact the City Clerk's Office, 853-2541, by 12:00 noon on Monday, May 17, 2004.
G1VENundermyhand this 4th dayof May 2004.
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk.
Notice to Publisher:
Publish in the Roanoke Times once on Friday, May 14, 2004.
Send affidavit to:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
215 Church Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
(540) 853-2541
Send bill to:
Wilbum C. Dibling, Jr., Esquire
Gentry, Locke, Rakes & Moore
P. O. Box 40013
Roanoke, Virginia 24022-0013
(540) 983-9370
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
May 25, 2004
File #166-200-383-468
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 36704-052004 approving the Wireless
Telecommunications Policy, and amending Vision 2001-2020, the City's
Comprehensive Plan, to include the Wireless Telecommunications Policy.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
at a regular meeting which was held on Thursday, May 20, 2004, and is in full
force and effect upon its passage.
Sincerely,
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SMM:ew
Enclosure
Darlene L. Burcham
May 25, 2005
Page 2
pc:
Robert B. Manetta, Chair, City Planning Commission,
2831Stephenson Avenue, S.W.,Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 20th day of Ymy, 2004.
No. 36704-052004.
AN ORDINANCE approving the Wireless Telecommunications Policy, and
amending Vision 2001 - 2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan, to include the Wireless
Telecommunications Policy; and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance by
rifle.
WHEREAS, because of the increasing demand for wireless telecommunications
facilities, policies, principles and intended achievements are needed to regulate the
facilities on both publicly and privately owned land;
WHEREAS, the Wireless Telecommunications Policy ("Policy") was presented to
the Planning Commission;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 15, 2004,
and recommended adoption of the Policy and amending Vision 2001 - 2020, the City's
Comprehensive Plan, to include such Policy; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of§15.2-2204, Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended, a public hearing was held before this Council on Thursday, May 20,
2004, on the proposed Policy, at which hearing all citizens so desiring were given an
opportunity to be heard and to present their views on such amendment.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as
follows:
1. That this Council hereby approves the Policy and amends Vision 2001-
2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan, to include the Policy as an element thereof.
2. That the City Clerk is directed to forthwith transmit attested copies of this
ordinance to the City Planning Commission.
3. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second
reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with.
ATTEST:
Architectural Review Board
Board of Zoning Appeals
Planning ( ornmission
CITY OF ROANOKE
PLANNING BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 166
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (540) 853-1730 Fax: (540) 853-1230
E-mail: plan ning~ci.roanoke.va.us
May 20, 2004
Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Vice Mayor
Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member
Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council:
Subject:
Adoption of the ~//re/ess Te/ecornmun/cations Pol/cy as an
element of V/s/on 2001-2020, the City's Comprehensive
Plan.
Planning Commission Action:
Planning Commission public hearing was held on Thursday, April ] 5, 2004.
By a vote of 7-0, the Commission recommended the adoption of the Wireless
Telecommunications Policy as an element of the City's comprehensive plan.
Background:
The ~//re/ess Te/ecomrnun/cat/ons ?o//cyhas been drafted to address the
increasing demand for wireless telecommunications facilities by setting forth
policies, principles, and intended achievements in regard to regulating
wireless telecommunications facilities on both publicly and privately owned
land. Recent court cases have underscored the importance of jurisdictions'
adopting a wireless telecommunications policy.
Considerations:
The ~I//re/ess Te/ecornrnun/cat/ons Po~lc? acknowledges the parameters of
regulation as set forth in the Telecommunications Act of 1966 while
recognizing the Act's preservation of the City's zoning authority over the
placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service
facilities. The W/re/ess Te/ecornrnunicat/ons Po//c?sets the direction for
specific standards and development regulations within the City's zoning
ordinance for the development of wireless telecommunications facilities, with
such standards to provide a uniform approach toward analyzing and
processing wireless telecommunications facilities requests from a land use
perspective.
The recommendations of the W/re/ess Te/ecomrnun/cations Po/icy are
intended to accommodate the growing coverage and capacity needs of
carriers while preserving and minimizing the negative impact wireless
telecommunications towers have on the surrounding natural and built
environments. Major recommendations of the W/re/ess Te/ecornrnun/cat/ons
Po/it?are to:
· Encourage collocation of antennas on existing towers, structures, and
buildings and the use of stealth wireless telecommunications facilities
through a streamlined approval process
· When necessitated, approve new towers that are Iow impact in terms
of location, siting, height, and design by
o Establishing a hierarchy of categories of lands on which to
construct wireless telecommunications towers
o Establishing guidelines for siting a wireless telecommunications
tower on a property;
o Requiring applicants to document justification for requested
heights of towers
o Considering the mitigation of the visual impact of a tower
through design elements such as the size, area, and bulk of the
tower or other support structure, associated equipment
enclosures, and the types of antennas and mounting techniques
· Take a regional approach by considering the potential impact of a
proposed wireless telecommunications facility on surrounding
jurisdictions as well as the City
· Establish a process and fee for utilizing a consultant to assist the City
in evaluating the alternatives and potential impacts of a special
exception request for a wireless telecommunications facility
· Develop uniform standards of visibility and impact within the zoning
regulations by which applications for wireless telecommunications
facilities will be reviewed and evaluated
V/s/on 2001-2020 includes the following three general policies related to
wireless telecommunications facilities:
IN P6.
Roanoke will facilitate development of the capacity and coverage
of fiber-optic, cable, and wireless communications networks.
IN P6.
The visual impact of telecommunication facilities will be
minimized by collocation and placement of towers in strategic
locations.
EC All.
Adopt zoning regulations that address communication towers to
minimize their visual impact.
The W/re/ess Te/ecornfnunications Po//cyis the next step in further refining
the general policies of Vision 2001-2020. The Wire/ess Te/ecomrnunications
Po/icyhas more specific policies and actions for reviewing and evaluating
requests for wireless telecommunications facilities within the City. The
W/re/ess Te/ecotnfnunications Po/icy contains specific recommendations that
should be implemented through the update of the zoning ordinance.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the W/re/ess
Te/ecommunications Po/icyon April 15, 2004. Public comment at the
hearing included the following:
· Mr. Don Nicholas, Verizon Wireless
o To encourage use of existing facilities, allow by right the
increase of antenna height by 10 to 15 feet;
o Make certain government facilities by right structures for the
placement of telecommunications facilities; and
o Add public properties to the preferred location list.
· Ms. Pa/ge Hoffer, T-Mobile
o Clarify that "in trees" means located among trees, not attached
to a tree;
o Favors City-owned property being a by-right location for
telecommunications facilities; and
o Be realistic in restricting heights and encourage stealthing by
streamlining process for stealth wireless telecommunications
facilities.
In addition, the Planning Commission received written comments from
SunCom and NTelos.
A majority of the comments received are related to regulations rather than
policy and therefore will be considered as a part of the update of the zoning
ordinance.
Planning Commission discussion included the following:
· The feasibility of placing wireless telecommunications
facilities/antennas among trees;
· Need to address setback issues as they may apply to narrow slivers of
industrially zoned land;
Encourage creativity in the design and placement of wireless
telecommunications facilities, such as placing antennas within unused
brick chimneys; and
Concern about establishing a policy that would encourage wireless
telecommunications facilities as a by-right use on City-owned property
(approval process should be subject to same regulatory review and
standards based on zoning district or classification not public versus
private ownership).
Recommendation:
By a vote of 7-0, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the
W/re/ess Telecommunications Policy as an element of Vision 2001-2020, the
City's Comprehensive Plan.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert B. Marietta, Chairman
City Planning Commission
Attachment
C:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Rolanda Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
DRAFT
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
An Element of Vision 2001-2020
APPLICATION AND DEFINITION
For the purposes of this policy, the term "wireless telecommunications" includes
personal wireless services as defined in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
[47 U.S.C._332(c)(7)(C)(i)] Wireless telecommunications facilities include any
facility used for the transmission or reception of wireless telecommunications,
usually consisting of an antenna or group of antennas, transmission lines,
ancillary appurtenances, equipment enclosures, and the antenna-supporting
structure.
BACKGROUND
Telecommunications Act of 1996
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 affects the City of Roanoke's land use
decisions in regard to wireless telecommunications facilities. The Act preserves
t e City s zoning authority over the placement, construcbon, and modification of
personal wireless service facilities? [47 U.S.C._332(c)(7)(A)] However, City
regulations and actions cannot unreasonably discriminate among wireless
providers or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless
services. [47 U.S.C._332(c)(7)(B)(i)] Furthermore, any denial of a wireless
service facility must be in writing and supported by substantial evidence
contained in a written record. [47 U.S.C._(c)(7)(B)(iii)] The Act is intended to
facilitate the growth of wireless telecommunications services while maintaining
substantial local control over construction of towers and other wireless
infrastructure.
Policy for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities on City Property
In 1997, City Council adopted the City of Roanoke Policy as to Wireless
Telecommunications Facilities Located on City Property. That document
establishes standards for wireless telecommunications facilities located on City-
owned properties, including standards for applications, priority of use of City
properties, leases, structural integrity, the screening of such facilities, and the
blending of such facilities with the natural environment.
~ As defined by the Act, the term "personal wireless service facilities" means facilities for the
provision of commercial mobile services (which includes cellular, personal communication
services, specialized mobile radio, enhanced specialized mobile radio, and paging), unlicensed
wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services. The term "unlicensed
wireless service" means the offering of telecommunications services using duly authorized
devices which do not require individual licenses, but does not mean the provision of direct-to-
home satellite services.
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
Element of Vision 2001-2020 (DRAFT 2-26-04)
Vision 2001-2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan
Vision 2001-2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan, establishes the following
general policies which guide this specific policy on wireless telecommunications
facilities:
Roanoke will facilitate development of the capacity and coverage of
fiber-optic, cable, and wireless communications networks. (Vision
2001-2020, page 72, IN P6)
The visual impact of telecommunication facilities will be minimized by
collocation and placement of towers in strategic locations.
(Vision 2001-2020, page 72, IN P6)
· Adopt zoning regulations that address communication towers to
minimize their visual impact. (Vision 2001-2020, page 50, EC A11 )
Need for and Purpose of a Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Policy
As a result of an increased demand for wireless telecommunications services,
providers are seeking continually to increase their service capacity and coverage
areas. In order to address the increasing demand for wireless
telecommunications facilities, it has become increasingly important for the City of
Roanoke to set forth policies, principles, and intended achievements in regard to
wireless telecommunications facilities on both publicly and privately owned land.
Standards should be implemented to accommodate the growing coverage and
capacity needs of carriers, while preserving and minimizing the negative impact
wireless telecommunications towers have on the surrounding natural and built
environments. Wireless telecommunications facilities should be deployed and
constructed in a manner that respects the City's environment and the
community's values.
The intent of this wireless telecommunications facilities policy is not to replace
the 1997 City policy, but rather to provide applicants for wireless
telecommunications facilities, property owners, and all other City residents clear
guidance on the policies of the City of Roanoke regarding wireless
telecommunications facilities on public and private lands. The policies
established, and the standards and approaches recommended, by this document
should be used by wireless telecommunications service providers as a guide
when selecting alternative tower sites and tower designs within the City. In
addition, the City of Roanoke should use these policies as a guide in the review
and evaluation of any requests for wireless telecommunications facilities. These
policies should set the direction for the establishment of specific standards and
development regulations within the City's zoning ordinance for the development
of wireless telecommunications facilities. Such standards and regulations should
create a uniform approach toward analyzing and processing wireless
telecommunications facilities siting requests from a land use perspective.
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
Element of Vision 2001-2020 (DRAFT 2-26-04)
The City finds that there are reasonable and feasible alternatives to highly visible
wireless telecommunications facilities. This policy is intended to allow for the
provision of wireless telecommunications facilities that have limited visual impact
on the community. Such facilities may be appropriate and may be approved in
any zoning district if the proposal meets standards for siting and design as it
relates to the facility's visibility and its visual impact.
POLICY APPROACH
It is the intent of the City to fully comply with all of the applicable provisions of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and other applicable federal and state laws as
such laws address and preserve the City's zoning authority and provide to the
wireless telecommunications industry the right and responsibility to provide
wireless telecommunications services within their service areas. The policies set
forth in this document will be implemented through specific regulatory provisions
in the City of Roanoke Zoning Ordinance.
When new wireless telecommunications facilities are proposed, visibility should
be the primary consideration in evaluating such requests. Visibility can be
measured in terms of the size, height, bulk, and location of the facility. Visibility
can be further mitigated by the strategic placement of the facility on a site and the
use of vegetative screening. The visual impact of a wireless telecommunications
facility is often the most important standard by which it can be evaluated. It is the
applicant's burden to substantiate that the requested location is necessary for
service coverage and that the proposed facility is the least intrusive means to
close a significant gap in service. The City should require an applicant for a
wireless telecommunications facility to submit sufficient information to enable the
City to measure the visual impact of a proposed facility.
The measures of visibility of a proposed wireless telecommunications
facility, as related to size, height, bulk, and location, should include the
proposed facility's visual obtrusiveness (overwhelming its surroundings),
visual intrusiveness (in relation to its surroundings), and visual
incompatibility (in context with its surroundings).
Towers and antennas with limited visibility should be encouraged, but a
highly visible wireless telecommunications facility may be acceptable if the
visual impacts are mitigated by means of camouflage, concealment, or
disguise. Camouflage involves minimal changes to the host structure
whereby the facility does not overwhelm the host structure and the host
structure remains predominant. Concealment is the placement of the
facility completely within an enclosed structure. Disguise is changing the
appearance of the facility to appear to be something it is not. Wireless
telecommunications towers should provide minimal visible intrusion in
areas designated for less intense uses. Although siting and design
standards should be considered with any application, such standards
should be key in consideration of requests in areas of less intense uses.
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
Element of Vision 2001-2020 (DRAFT 2-26-04)
Towers should cause minimal impacts on public safety, the natural
environment, and surrounding properties. Regulations should encourage
coordination between providers of wireless telecommunications services.
Regulations should protect the character, scale, viability, and quality of life
of residential districtsJ
Regulations should provide for the reasonable removal of discontinued
wireless telecommunications towers and related facilities.
POLICIES
The City encourages the provision of new service capacity by locating new
antennas on pre-existing wireless telecommunications towers or other existing
,structures, a practice known as collocation. Providers of wireless
telecommunications services should consider the following when applying for a
new facility in the City:
WTF Pl.
The placement, construction, or modification of wireless
telecommunications facilities on existing buildings and other
existing structures is strongly encouraged, and providers
should always seek opportunities to locate on existing
structures. Many times antennas installed on existing buildings,
utility poles, water tanks, electric transmission towers, sign support
structures, and park or ballfleld lights can satisfy the. intended
coverage areas and diminish the need to erect new wireless
telecommunications towers. Other options for placement include
flagpoles, treetops, and church steeples. There should be flexibility
in the type of antenna allowed, provided the antenna is mounted in
a manner that does not dominate the structure and it does not
exceed the height allowed by the zoning regulations.
WTF P2.
The City further encourages the use of stealth wireless
telecommunications facilities, designed in such a manner that they
are installed on existing structures or appurtenances and are
camouflaged or partially or totally concealed to blend with
surroundings. Such facilities are inconspicuous, and citizens would
not be able to differentiate reasonably between the existing
structure and the facilities integrated into them. Potential sites
include church steeples, bell towers, utility poles, and flagpoles.
Collocation on existing towers is strongly encouraged,
provided visibility is not unnecessarily exacerbated. An
arrangement where multiple carriers share space on the same
wireless telecommunications tower allows for the "highest and best'
use of an existing structure and could eliminate the need for
construction of a new tower in an inappropriate area. Providers
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities 4
Element of Vision 2001-2020 (DRAFT 2-26-04)
WTF P3.
should always seek out every opportunity to locate on existing
wireless telecommunications towers. If an applicant does not
propose a collocation site, the provider should demonstrate why
collocation sites would not work and substantiate the need for a
new tower. Any new facility should be designed to accommodate
additional collocation opportunities. Collocation which results in
adverse visual impact, such as vertical collocations that increase
the height of a structure or the size or projection of antenna arrays
from the support structure, should be discouraged. Visibility should
be considered in determining the number, location, and design of
platforms and antennas to be located on a tower.
Requests for new wireless telecommunications towers in the
City should be approved when no other reasonable alternative
exists for locating antennas needed for service coverage.
Approved towers should be Iow impact in terms of location,
siting, height, and design. To effectively accomplish Iow-impact
towers, proposed towers should address the following principles:
Proper location: New wireless telecommunications towers
and antennas should be constructed in locations (the
property or general area where such facility is to be placed)
that will provide the least negative impact on the community
and that will avoid or minim, ize environmental impacts to the
greatest extent practicable, consistent with Federal rules and
regulations. The location should be compatible with
surrounding land uses and not detrimental to the City's
attractiveness, health, safety, and welfare. To help alleviate
the negative impact associated with towers, the following list
provides a hierarchy of categories of lands on which to
construct wireless telecommunications towers, from the most
to least preferable:
(1) Industrially zoned lands
(2) Commercially zoned lands
(3) Downtown District zoned lands
(4) High density residential zoned lands ·
(5) Institutionally zoned lands
(6) Medium density residential zoned lands
(7) Agricultural or Recreation and Open Space zoned
lands
(8) Low density residential zoned lands
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
Element of Vision 2001-2020 (DRAFT 2-26-04)
A wireless telecommunications facility does not have to be
located in the most preferable locations if careful siting and
Iow-impact design considerations mitigate its impact. The
less preferable the location, the more critical siting, height,
and design become in consideration of a proposed facility.
Careful siting: Siting refers to a specific point on a property
where a wireless telecommunications facility is to be
constructed, such as in the trees or on the roof. Strategic
placement within trees or below a ridgeline can significantly
reduce visibility of the facility. Wireless telecommunications
facility locations at elevations lower than surrounding ridge
lines, with adequate amounts of trees as a backdrop to
eliminate skylining and reduce visibility of the facility, are
preferred. If there is no other reasonable alternative and a
proposed wireless telecommunications facility must be
located on a ridgeline, it should be placed on an available
transmission line where such power line has already cut the
ridgeline or on existing buildings or other structures located
on ridgelines. Siting of facilities should not create a hazard
to adjacent property or cause the over-development of
property that results in an undue intrusion onto adjacent
property.
Minimizing height: Given that Virginia law specifically
authorizes the consideration of height in land use regulation
and decisions, consideration of the proposed height of a new
tower is appropriate. Many times the intended coverage can
be accomplished with a lower height. Reducing height can
be an effective means of reducing the visual intrusiveness of
a tower. Providers should document justification of any
requested height and conduct tests to demonstrate the
visibility of the proposed facility from surrounding areas.
Height considerations should include consideration of any
lighting that may be required by other regulatory authority as
a result of the proposed height and its effect on the visual
impact of the tower.
Design: A well-designed wireless telecommunications
facility can make a difference, particularly in areas of high
visibility. Design considerations should include the size,
height, area, and bulk of the tower or other support structure,
associated equipment enclosures, and the types of antennas
and mounting techniques as they relate to the overall height,
size, and bulk of the tower. Design issues related to public
safety and welfare should also be considered.
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
Element of Vision 2001-2020 (DRAFT 2-26-04)
The use of monopole stealth towers is preferred in lieu of
the more intrusive lattice design structures, which affect
the size and bulk of a proposed tower. (Monopole stealth
towers consist of hollow metal tubes and are designed to
blend into the surroundings.)
Lattice towers, which are capable of great height, may be
acceptable if appropriately sited.
Guyed towers may be appropriate in remote locations.
Ground-mounted monopoles and masts are acceptable
for wireless telecommunications facilities. Masts are
preferable because they are shorter and more slender
than monopoles and the antennas can be kept close to
the pole, but monbpoles are acceptable provided the
antennas do not protrude far from the pole.
An antenna-supporting structure should be no wider than
the minimum necessary to support the proposed
equipment.
Roof-mounted facilities are acceptable but should be of a
scale and color that are in keeping with the roof. It is
preferable that roof-mounted facilities be flush-mounted
on the parapet or a penthouse rather than projecting
upwardly. Panel antennas should be located so that they
do not peak above the roofline and should be positioned
below the parapet.
Dual-polarized or cross-polarized antennas are preferred
over antenna arrays that provide for spatial diversity.
Antennas should be mounted close to the supporting
structure and should be designed to minimize visibility.
For siting on utility poles, antennas should be mounted
close to, or flush-mounted against, the pole. If located on
top of the pole, overhang should be limited.
Ground-based equipment should be limited in size and
screened from view.
The type and color of paint can reduce visibility of towers.
Towers, regardless of location, should be painted with a
neutral, flat paint, and should be a color which blends
with its surrounding environment.
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities ?
Element of Vision 2001-2020 (DRAFT 2-26-04)
WTF P4.
ACTIONS
WTF Al.
WTF A2.
WTF a3.
Lighting and reflective signs should be allowed only when
required by other regulating bodies such as the Federal
Aviation Administration.
Any advertising on towers should be prohibited.
Security fencing should be provided.
A wireless communications facility should not cause
interference to any television, radio, telephone,
electronic, or other communications device on or off the
site of the facility.
Consideration of any request for a new wireless
telecommunications facility within the City should be reviewed
for its potential effects on surrounding jurisdictions as well as
the City. Newly constructed towers should be located to provide
the least negative impact to the citizens of all jurisdictions.
Facilities located within existing structures and having no exterior
visibility or collocating without exceeding previously approved
heights should be handled administratively with subsequent
approval if standards are met. Applications proposing visually
intrusive facilities should require application tO the Board of Zoning
Appeals for a special exception. The justification of why and where
a wireless !elecommunications facility is proposed to be located
should be the applicant's responsibility. Procedural requirements
should be drafted to ensure proposed facilities are consistent with
the character of the community; are reviewed within a reasonable
period of time; and are reviewed according to clear and
understandable design and location criteria.
Establish a process and fee for utilizing a consultant to assist the
City in evaluating the possible alternatives and potential impacts of
a special exception request for a wireless telecommunications
facility.
Amend zoning regulations to include minimum submittal
requirements for applications for wireless telecommunications
facilities. Such standards should include:
· Documentation of service area needs for proposed
location;
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
Element of Vision 2001-2020 (DRAFT 2-26-04)
WTF A4.
WTF A§.
· Existing structures and collocation sites considered and
rejected by the provider and the reasons why;
· Computer simulations and balloon tests to illustrate
visibility of the proposed facility;
· Scaled plans depicting location of facility on the site,
including setback dimensions;
· Design and photos of the specific type of support
structure;
· Design and location of all associated equipment
structures, cabinet, shelters, or buildings;
· Design, type, location, height, and configuration of all
proposed antennas;
· Design, type, location, height, and configuration of all
potential future antennas;
· Landscaping, screening, and security fencing plans;
· Proposed support structure's design and its capability to
support other providers;
Certification of the structural integrity of the support
structure as affected by the attachment or location of
proposed wireless telecommunications facilities; and
· Justification of ti~e requested height.
Develop and incorporate uniform standards of visibility and impact
within the zoning regulations by which applications for wireless
telecommunications facilities will be reviewed, evaluated, and
considered, with such standards to be used as findings for approval
or denial of such applications. A regional approach to the
regulation of wireless communications facilities should be taken;
therefore, such regulations should be consistent with those of
surrounding jurisdictions.
Compile information and develop a map and list showing all
towedantenna sites and providers using those sites within the City
and surrounding jurisdictions in an effort to encourage and promote
the collocation of antennas on existing public and private structures
within the City. This map and list will allow the City access to
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
Element of Vision 2001-2020 (DRAFT 2-26-04)
current information on tower locations to better assess the
possibilities for alternative sites.
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities 10
Element of Vision 2001 ~2020 (DRAFT 2-26-04)
The Roanoke Times
Roanoke, Virginia
Affidavit of Publication
The Roanoke Times
.................................................. + ...........................
ROANOKE CITY CLERK'S
215 CHURCH AVE° RM 456
ATT: MARY PARKER, CL
ROANOKE VA 24011
REFERENCE: 80023382
02356119
Wireless Tele. Polic
State of Virginia
City of Roanoke
I, (the undersigned) an authorized representative
of the Times-World Corporation, which corporation
is publisher of the Roanoke Times, a daily
newspaper published in Roanoke, in the State of
Virginia, do certify that the annexed notice was
published in said newspapers on the following
dates:
City/County of Roanoke, Commonwealth/State of
Virginia. Sworn and subscribed before me this
___~_~_day of May 2004. Witness my hand and
official seal.
~~_____~_ ~ ~_~_ _ Notary Public
.y commissio pires .... -
PUBLISHED ON: 05/03 05/10
TOTAL COST:
FILED ON:
265.10
05/14/04
20, 2004, at 7:00' ~.~., c,- ~
Authorized
Signature: , Billin9 Services Representative
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Notice is hereby given pursuant to §15.2-2204, of the Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended, that Vision 2001 - 2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan, is proposed to be
amended to include the Wireless Telecommunications Policy as an element of such
Comprehensive Plan.
A copy of the proposed Wireless Telecommunications Policy to be considered by City
Council is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, Room 456, Noel C. Taylor Municipal
Building.
A public hearing will be held before the Council of the City of Roanoke on Thursday,
May 20, 2004, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Council
Chambers, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Roanoke,
Virginia, at which time citizens of the City shall be given an opportunity to appear and be
heard by Council on the subject of this proposed amendment.
If you are a person with a disability who needs accommodations for this hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office (853-2541), before 12:00 noon on Monday, May 17,
2004.
GIVEN under my hand this 29th day of April
,2004.
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk.
Notice to Publisher:
Publish in the Roanoke Times once on Monday, May 3, 2004, and Monday, May 10, 2004.
Send bill and affidavit to:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
215 Church Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
(540) 853-2541
Notice to Publisher:
Publish in the Roanoke Tribune once on Thursday, May 13, 2004.
Send bill and affidavit to:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
215 Church Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
(540) 853-2541
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
April 29, 2004
File #51
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of Council:
Pursuant to provisions of Resolution No. 25523 adopted bythe Council of the City
of Roanoke on Monday, April 6, 1981, or other instructions by the Council, the
following matters have been advertised for public hearing on Thursday, May 20,
2004, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chamber:
(1)
Request of Fudds of S.W.VA., Inc., requesting Amendment of
Proffered Conditions in connection with rezoning of a tract of
land located at 3659 Orange Avenue, N. E., Official Tax No.
7110122, containing 3.130 acres, more or less, from RS-3,
Residential Single-Family District, to C-2, General Commercial
District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the
petitioner.
(2)
Amendment of the Vision 2001-2020, Comprehensive Plan, to
include the Wireless Telecommunications Policy.
N:\CKEW1 h°ublic Hearings 2004hMay 2004hMay 20 Council Letler,doe
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Roanoke City Council
April 29, 2004
Page 2
(3)
Request of the Unified Human Services Transportation System, Inc.
(RADAR), for exemption from local real estate taxation of real
property identified as Official Tax Nos. 2510106- 2510109, inclusive,
and 2510111-2510117, inclusive, located between Breckinridge
Avenue and Baker Avenue, N. W. Wilburn C. Dibling,Jr., Attorney.
I am enclosing copy of the City Planning Commission reports regarding the
above described public hearings.
With kindest personal regards, I am
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ew
Enclosure
N:\CKEWI~Public Hea~ngs 2004~Vlay 2004~Vlay 20 Council Letter.doc
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Roanoke City Council
April 29, 2004
Page 3
pc:
Robert B. Manetta, Chair, City Planning Commission, 2831 Stephenson
Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Robert N. Richert, Chair, Architectural Review Board, 415 Allison Avenue,
S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Susan S. Lower, Director, Real Estate Valuation
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney, transmitted electronically by e-mail
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission and Architectural
Review Board
Stephanie M. Moon, Deputy City Clerk
Sharon A. Mougin, Executive Secretary, City Manager's Office, transmitted
electronically by e-mail
N:\CKEW I ~Public Hearings 2004kMay 2004hMay 20 Council Letter.doc
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: ¢lerk~¢i.roanoke.va.us
May 25, 2003
File #249
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
Edward N. Natt, Attorney
Osterhoudt, Prillaman, Natt,
Helscher, Yost, Maxwell and Ferguson
P. O. Box 20487
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Dear Mr. Natt:
Your petition appealing a decision of the Architectural Review Board for a
Certificate of Appropriateness with regard to property located at 365 Washington
Avenue, S. W., was before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting
which was held on Thursday, May 20, 2004.
Based on evidence, testimony and documents, Council voted to affirm the decision
of the City of Roanoke Architectural Review Board on March 11, 2004, that no
Certificate of Appropriateness be issued for roof replacement, as set forth in the
Petition of Appeal, on the grounds that the proposed installation would not be
compatible with the architectural defining features of the building.
Sincerely,
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SMM:ew
Edward A. Natt
May 25, 2004
Page 2
pc:
Valerie Eagle, President, Old Southwest, 1225 3rd Street, S. W., Roanoke,
Virginia 24016
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
R. Brian Townsend, Director, Planning, Building and Development
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, Architectural Review Board
CITY OF ROANOKE
PLANNING BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 166
Roanoke, Virginia 2401 I
Telephone: (540) 853-1730 Fax: (540) 853-1230
E-mail: plan ning@ci.roanoke.va.us
May 20, 2004
Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Vice Mayor
Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member
Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council:
Su~e~:
Community Properties, LLC Appeal of
Architectural Review Board Decision
365 Washington Avenue, S.W.
Background:
In January 2004, a citizen advised staff that a standing-seam metal roof had
been replaced with asphalt shingles on the house at 365 Washington Avenue,
S.W., which is within the H-2, Neighborhood Preservation District. Ms. Anne
Beckett, Architectural Review Board (ARB) Agent, followed up on the complaint
and contacted Mr. Rhodney Tozier of Community Properties, LLC, who manages
the property. She met with Mr. Tozier on-site to discuss the project and arrange
for the required design review.
The stucco, two-story house was constructed in 1900, and now contains four
apartments. The house has a wrap-around front porch that has a metal roof and
features an added metal awning. The house had remained relatively unaltered
until recently, when prior to Mr. Tozier purchasing the property, the house and
the porch were painted.
Mr. Tozier stated that he recently bought the house and replaced the standing-
seam metal roof with asphalt shingles as was recommended by his contractor,
who had recently replaced a metal roof with asphalt shingles at 409 Washington
Avenue, S.W. The contractor stated that the owner had obtained a Certificate of
Appropriateness (COA).
Mr. Tozier's metal sheathing was replaced sometime over the week of December
29, 2003, and upon inspection by staff on January 7, the work was completed
and equipment piled in the back yard. The city GIS photograph of the house that
was probably taken in October of 2001 depicts the metal roof in good condition.
Apparently, the roof had been painted, but according to the owner was rusting
from the inside out. Mr. Tozier stated that the current asphalt shingles are
amhitectural grade and match the other roofs on his side of the street. While
most of the roofs on the north side of the street have been changed to asphalt
shingles, the south side has not.
Mr. Tozier advised staffthat he was unaware that a Certificate of
Appropriateness was required for asphalt shingles. Staff advised that asphalt
shingles are permitted in the H-2 district, if they are similar to the original
materials and that the amhitecturally-defining features of the building are
maintained. The project was not using like materials or design and therefore
required ARB approval.
Mr. Tozier then filed an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (See
Application: Attachment A). On February 12, 2004, the ARB considered the
application (See Minutes: Attachment B).
At the ARB meeting, Mr. Tozier stated that the metal roofing was rusting and
needed to be replaced. Mr. Robert Richert, ARB Chair, expressed concern that
the Board did not have the opportunity to evaluate the condition of the metal. Mr.
Don Harwood, ARB member, stated that they would have preferred repairing the
metal as opposed to replacement. The previous owner of the property, Mr.
George Bristol, came forward and stated that the metal was in bad condition and
needed to be replaced. Mr. Robert Manetta, ARB member, stated that the new
material was incompatible and that the re-reoting was not consistent with the H-2
guidelines.
Mr. Richert suggested that Mr. Tozier withdraw the request or ask for a
continuance in order to consider other options for the roof. Mr. Tozier requested
to table the application, which request to table the application was approved by a
7-0 vote.
On March 11, 2004, the ARB considered Mr. Tozier's amended application (See
Application and Minutes: Attachments C and D).
Mr. Tozier stated that he was proposing to remove the pomh awning and to
repair the metal porch roof. He proposed no further modifications to the
application, except that he did not want to install metal ridge and valley capping
as had been suggested at the previous meeting. Mr. Richert and Mr. Harwood
expressed concern for the new roofing material and the manner in which it was
installed.
There being no further discussion, a roll call was taken on the request. The
motion to approve the amended application failed by a 1-4 vote. Mr. Tozier was
formally notified of the denial and of his right to appeal to City Council by letter
dated March 12, 2004.
Mr. Tozier filed an appeal of the ARB's decision on April 9, 2004 (Attachment E).
Considerations:
Section 36.1-345(c) of the Zoning Ordinance provides:
"The replacement of...roofing materials...shall not require a certificate of
appropriateness, provided that such installation or replacement is
performed using materials which are of the same design as those on the
building, structure or landmark, and provided that such installation or
replacement maintains the architecturel defining features of the building,
structure or landmark.
The materials being used were not the same material or design as the original
and the architectural defining features of the building were not maintained as a
result of the project. The project, therefore, required a Certificate of
Appropriateness.
The H-2 Architectural Design Guidelines adopted by the ARB and endoreed by
City Council state that architectural styles are often identified by the form and
materials of the roof, which is an important design feature. A well-maintained roof
and gutter system will help prevent the deterioration of other parts of a building.
Changing, removing, or adding materials or features to a roof can often alter or
destroy a building's character. The guidelines further recommend the following
be considered specifically when evaluating roofs:
· Identify and keep original materials and features of roofs.
· Do not remove historic roofing materials, such as slate, clay tile, wood
shingles, or metal, that are still in good overall condition.
· Keep standing seam roofs painted and all seams tightly crimped.
· When it is not feasible to replace standing-seam metal roofs with the
same materials, explore the use of prefabricated battened-metal roof
systems.
Since January 1,2000, there has been no request to the ARB to approve the
replacement of standing-seam metal with fiberglass shingles on the main roof of
a house. There have been two requests, however, including one at the April,
2004 Board meeting that were approved to replace slate shingles with
architectural grade fiberglass shingles that emulated slate shingles. The projects
were approved because the applicant provided sufficient detail and proposed to
apply the materials in a manner that preserved the character of the structure.
3
Recommendation:
The Amhitectural Review Board recommends that City Council affirm the ARB
decision to deny the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Sin_..~cereJy,/~, ~
Amhitectural Review Board
CC;
Darlene L. Burnham, City Manager
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attomey
R. Brian Townsend, Director, Planning Building and Development
Anne S. Beckett, Agent, Architectural Review Board
Roanoke Architectural Review Board
Request for Certificate of Appropriateness
(~) Date of Application:
Property address: . ..~'_c
Property owner:
Name:
Address:
Phone: ~/2 - Z~ ~
Representative (contractor or agent):
Name: ~-, ~.~- ~6~-.~.r
Address:
ATTACHMENT A
P,~GE 0).
ROANOKE
Phone: ,~3~/- ~'"~2Z
(~) Description of Work:
Include details of construction, dimensions, and the materials that will be used. Attach supporting
information to the application (e.g. scaled drawing, photographs, and samplesX
(~) Signature of owner (required)
Section below to be completed by staff
Tax Parcel Number: ~ Approval By: ~ ARB [] Secretary
Zoning District: ~/~-- ~. Approved'.
~her appr~als needed: -
Agent, Architectural Revi~ Board
~ Zoning Permit
~ Building Permit
~ Other ~
-'Certificate Number:
Description of Work
I am requesting a certificate of appropriateness to replace the roof at 365 Washington
Avenue. I apologize for not submitting this request in advance of performing the work. I
didn't realize that it was a requirement to acquire a certificate of appropriateness before
replacing thc roof at this address. Otherwise, I would have requested this certificate well
in advance.
The prior roof at 365 Washington Avenue had pin holes in it in hundreds of places.
These holes were visible in the attic and were a result of many years of rust. This rust
wasn't visible from the street beeanse the roof had been painted on the outside covering
the rust. The roof was resting from the inside out. The rust was causing leaks, which if
allowed to continue, would have resulted in major daroage to the house. According to the
roofer I chose to perform the work, the roof couldn't be repaired. The only option was to
replace the roof. The replaeemem roof is a shingled roof similar to every other home on
its side of the block. The shingle that was used was an architectural shingle and is an
upgrade over a standard 3 tab shingle that is used on many shingle roofs.
! located the roofer that I used (Tony Barnes) while he was replacing a roof at 409
Washington Avenue. This house was in a similar situation as my house. It had an
existing metal roof and was replaced with a shingle roof. According to Tony, my metal
roof was in worse shape than the metal roof at 409 Washington Avenue. Tony informed
me atter my roof was replaced tluat the home at 409 Washington had received a certificate
of appropriateness. He assumed that I had received this certificate as well.
Unfortunately, since I am not required to get a permit 'From the city to replace the roof
and I have never received any documentation of any kind concerning the historic
guidelines of this neighborhood, I didn't realize that there were specific guidelines for
replacing a roof. Also, it didn't occur to me that I couldn't replace the existing metal roof
with a shingle roof because this was already being done one block from my house, and
every other house on my block on my side of the street has a shingle roof. My intentions,
both now and in the future, are to continue to maintain and improve the home wherever
necessary. I now un.derstand that this neighborhood has specific guidelines and I wilI
follow those guidelines and will seek the approval of the Architectural Review Board
before making any changes in the future. It is my hope that you will comider all of these
circumstances when making your decision regarding the certificate of appropriateness For
replacing the roof of this house.
Thank you in advance for considering this request. If you have any questions or need
further information, please fecl free to contact me at 342-2244.
ATTACHMENT B
City Architectural Review Board
February 12, 2004
le 5
Mr. ephenson questioned whether the peak of the arch of the gate
higher than the top of the fence post. He said he would not like
to see le arch higher than the fence.
Mr. Tod
post and
said that he did not want the arch higher than the top of the
~t it should look like the drawing submitted.
Mr. Richert ;ked for staffcomment.
Ms. Beckett s she had none.
Mr. Richert
audience comment.
There being none, asked for all those in favor of the application as
presented. The req was approved 7-0.
Request from Community Properties for a Certificate of
Appropriateness approvinq an existinq roof replacement at 365
Washinqton Avenue, S.W.
Mr. Rodney Tozier appeared before the Board and said that he and his
brother were Community Properties.
Mr. Richert asked if there was anything Mr. Tozier wanted to add to his
application.
Mr. Tozier thanked Ms. Beckett for her help and thanked the Board for
allowing him to come before them. He said that he did not realize that
the roof replacement had to come before the Board for approval.
Mr. Harwood referenced Mr. Tozier's letter and asked how damaged the
metal roof was.
Mr. Tozier said that the roof had rusted through.
Ms. Botkin asked if the rust was in the eaves or the roof itself.
Mr. Tozier said that it was the roof itself.
Mr. Richert said that work that had been done before coming to the Board
was very difficult for the Board to deal with. He said the Board had not
had an opportunity to evaluate the problem and offer input about
possible color and type of shingle.
City Architectural Review Board
February 12, 2004
Page 6
Mr. Harwood said that the Board had had the discussion before about
unique characteristics of buildings in the historic district and in terms of
roofs, whether it be slate or standing-seam metal. He said he would think
that the Board would have made a strong pitch for some alternative repair
methods. He said that there was really no recourse to bring the roof
back.
Mr. Stephenson asked the condition of the sheathing.
Mr. George Bristol, former owner of the property, said that all the
sheathing had to be replaced. He said that he did look at alternatives and
the entire roof was in bad shape. He then said there was no sheathing,
but the roof was layered on slats. He also said he had the roof replaced
after Mr. Tozier bought it.
Mr. Richert asked Mr. Bristol if he had painted the porch.
Mr. Bristol said he had.
Ms. Botkin asked Mr. Bristol how long he owned the house.
Mr. Bristol responded he owned it a couple of years.
Mr. Manetta questioned whether he knew he was in the historic district.
Mr. Bristol said he did, but he had seen another roof being replaced and
didn't know he needed to go to the Board.
Mr. Richert asked for audience comment.
There was none.
Mr. Richert said the decision was extremely difficult. He said that it
occurred to him that if the valleys had been done in copper as opposed to
shingles, that might help. He suggested that the ridge caps could also be
done in copper. He said that the roof lines were relatively complex. He
also commented on the existing awning, noting that it was not
characteristic of what the Board liked to see on buildings like this one.
He said that there was probably no way he could support the application
as submitted.
Mr. Tozier said that he understood that what had been done, had been
done. He said there were things on the home right now that were a little
more blatant than the roof; i.e., the awning. He said that he would be
City Architectural Review Board
February 12, 2004
Page 7
open to taking the awning down and he would look at the cost of doing
something with the copper on the valleys and ridge caps. He said he
would like to have the opportunity to look into that.
Mr. Harwood said that the ridges would be easier to do and would be the
first thing you see. He said it might be difficult to do the valleys because
that might void the warranty on the roof.
Mr. Manetta said that he considered the material that was removed,
before the Board had a chance to review it, good material. He said he
found the new material very incompatible and he did not think that
putting copper on it would help. He said that the owner had re-roofed
the house in violation of the ordinance. He said he could not vote to
issue a Certificate for this.
Mr. Richert said that Mr. Tozier could withdraw the request or ask for a
continuance. He said that if the Board denied the request, then Mr.
Tozier could not come back for a year with substantially the same
application.
Mr. Tozier said that he probably needed to go back and see if there were
any modifications that he could bring to the Board. He said he would like
to table the request. He said he was sensitive to the fact that there were
a lot of neighbors who have gone to a great extent to make their homes
historically accurate. He said his intent was to have a home and maintain
it to the best of his ability. He asked the Board to find a way of doing a
better job of informing new home owners that they were in the historic
district so that they did not end up in the same situation he was in.
Mrs. Blanton said that was being explored.
Mr. Richert said that Mr. Tozier was not the first petitioner to make that
request.
Mr. Tozier apologized for putting the Board in this situation and said he
hoped to bring this property back into a manner that would please the
Board and be financially feasible for him.
It was generally agreed by the Board that they wanted the awning to be
removed.
Ms. Botkin said that the metal roof really stands out because it was not
changed.
City Architectural Review Board
February 12, 2004
Page 8
There being no further discussion, motion was made by Mrs. Blanton,
seconded by Ms. Botkin and approved 7-0 to continue the request to the
Board's March meeting.
:her Discussion:
a
~ssion of a resolution establishinq a Desiqn Application Review
littee. Motion was made, duly seconded and unanimously
.'d to establish a Design Application Review Committee.
Mission
wording
duly
Board's
Board members and staff discussed the
a mission statement for the Board. Motion was made,
:d and approved to adopt the following as the
)n statement.
and historic
neighborhoods.
shall ensure the preservation,
maintenance of the city's architectural, cu/tura/
bui/dings, signs, structures and
Ordinance
whether they wanted
ordinance relative to
adopted. Mr. Richert
making roof re[
Townsend advised that he
and being it back.
for roofing. Mr. Townsend asked the Board
~ursue an amendment to the zoning
ng or wait until the new ordinance was
;d that the Board should pursue
y review by the Board. Mr.
uld begin the amendment process
There being no further discussion, :g adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
ATTACHMENT C
MOVIE STARZ CoRPORAT PAGE
Roanoke Architectural Review Board
Request for Certificate of Appropriateness
(~ Date of Application:
(~) Property address: ~'~'
(~) Property owner:
Name:
Address:
Phone:
(~) Representative (contractor or agent):
Name: ;:T'~ ~,,~ ~-,a~.r
01
:ROANOKE
Address:
Phone:
(~) Description of Work:
Include details of construction, dimensions, and the materials that will be used. Attach supporting
information to the application (e.g. scaled drawing, photographs, and samples).
Signature of owner
(required)
Tax ParceI Number: ~
Zoning District: ~"~'- ~--
Overlay district: [] H1
Other approvals needed:
[] Zoning Permit
[] Building Permit
I'-] Other
Section below to be completed by staff
Approval By: 1~. ARB [] Secretary
Approved:
Agent, Architectural Review l~oard
'"~ertiflcate Number:
_Description of Work
I am requesting a certificate of appropriateness for the roof replacement at 365
Washington. The roof has been replaced and is now a shingle roof. I also have a metal
porch roof that hasn't been addressed.
I am proposing that the existing shingle roof remain and I am prepared to take steps to
repair/replace the metal porch roof. I am open to the board's suggestions as to whether it
would be appropriate to repair and paint the metal porch roof or to replace it with a
shingle roof that matches the house roof. Additionaily, I propose to remove the awnings
on the porch and replaceffrepair and repaint any woodwork wl~erever necessary.
Thank you in advance for considering this request. If you have any questions or need
further information, please feel free to contact me at 342-2244.
ATTACHMENT D
CITY OF ROANOKE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
MARCH 11,2004
MINUTES
lular meeting of the Architectural Review Board was held on
March 11,2004, in the City Council Chamber of the Noel C.
Taylor ' ' ~al Building. The meeting was called to order by Robert
Richert, ~a'rman, at 4:01 p.m. Attendance was as follows:
Members ~ent:
Alison
Don Harwood
Robert Richert
James Schleuter
Jon Stephenson
Members Absent:
Barbara Botkin
Robert Manetta
The following items
considered:
1. Approval of
- February 12, 2004.
There being no additions corrections, motion was made, duly
seconded and approved to a )rove the minutes as written.
Request from Roanoke
Certificate of
Mountain Avenue, S.W.
ational Holiness Church for a
a handicap ramp at 349
Mr. Richert moved this item to the ~d of the agenda in hopes that a
representative from the church be in attendance. As no one was in
attendance to represent the church, was made, duly seconded
and approved to continue the matter :il the Board's April meeting.
Request from Community Properties for a Certificate of
Appropriateness approvinq an existinq roof replacement at 365
Washinqton Avenue, S.W.
Mr. Rhodney Tozier appeared before the Board and said that he was
proposing to remove the awning. He asked that the Board help him make
a decision on the existing porch roof. He said that he would like to keep
the porch roof as metal and repair it. He noted that he could, however,
make it consistent with the shingle roof.
Architectural Review Board Minutes
March 11,2004
Page 2
Mr. Richert asked if Mr. Tozier was proposing any modification to the
roof of the house.
Mr. Tozier responded that he was not. He said that he had talked over
the suggestions made by the Board (addition of copper ridges and
valleys) with an architect, who had advised him to avoid those changes,
which would draw more attention to the roof. He said that to make those
changes would make the roof out of character with other roofs in the
neighborhood.
Mr. Richert asked if he had understood at the last meeting that there was
some sheathing underneath the shingles.
Mr. Tozier said that was correct.
Mr. Richert said that it was hard for him to believe that the metal roof had
been removed because of the speed in which the shingle roof had been
put on the house.
Mr. Tozier advised that it took at least a week from start to finish to
complete the roof.
Mr. Harwood said the Board was charged to determine whether a proper
fit had been made and another charge was to preserve the streetscape
and individual facades. He said that metal and slate roofs were
endangered in the neighborhood. He said he felt this particular roof
needed to be an example that would lead the Board to come up with
some type of action for those that slip through the cracks. He said that
he agreed with Mr. Tozier's architect's assessment of the ridges and
valleys. He also said that he would like to see the standing seam metal
porch roof repaired and the awning removed.
Mr. Tozier said that he would like to keep the metal porch roof as well.
He said that he had driven through the neighborhood and consistently
found structures with shingled house roofs and metal porch roofs.
Mr. Richert asked for audience comment.
There being none, he said that, speaking only for himself, he could not
support the request. He said the roof was inappropriate. He said there
were property owners in the neighborhood who were doing their roofs
the right way and following appropriate procedures. He said that he
would not support the petition. He asked for further comments.
Architectural Review Board Minutes
March 11,2004
Page 3
Mr. Tozier said that he understood the disdain the Board had with the
transformation of the house. He said there needed to be something in
place to keep this from happening to other homeowners. He said that he
was not the only person who had moved into the neighborhood and not
had a clue about the regulations. He said he did not purposely violate
any of the guidelines. He said that if the Board chose not to approve the
request, he would like to know how to move forward.
There being no further discussion, a roll call vote was taken on the
request. The Certificate was denied by a vote of 4-1, as follows:
Mr. Harwood - yes
Mrs. Blanton - no
Mr. Schleuter - no
Mr. Stephenson - no
Mr. Richert- no
Mr. Richert advised Mr. Tozier that he could speak with Anne Beckett
about his options.
Request from Steven Duqqer for a Certificate of Appropriateness
approvinq an existinq window replacement at 717 Highland
Avenue, S.W.
Mr. Richert asked Mr. Dugger if he had anything to add to his application.
Mr. Dugger said that he had changed the windows because of the dust
and noise from the adjacent railroad tracks. He said that he did not know
he needed approval from the Board for windows. He said he did get a
Certificate from the Board last year when he built a deck.
Mr. Harwood said that there was a problem with having replacement
windows that match the same configuration and shadow line as the
original window. He said that Mr. Dugger's replacement windows had no
shadow line. He asked if the manufacturer could provide a muntin bar
for the windows.
Mr. Paul Graybill, builder, appeared before the Board and said that he
might be able to get that done. He said that the Board's guidelines say
that what he had installed was appropriate. He said he could have a
muntin milled and painted if that was the issue. He said he did not
change the opening.
ATTACHMENT E
VIRGINIA:
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE
IN THE MATTER OF
RHODNEY TOZIER and TRAVIS TOZIER
d/b/a COMMUNITY PROPERTIES, LLC
PETITION FOR APPEAL
This is a Petition for Appeal from a decision of the Architectural Review Board under
Section 36.1-642(d) of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as
amended.
1. Name of Petitioner(s):
Rhodney Tozier and Travis Tozier
2. Doing business as (if applicable): d/b/a Community Properties, LLC
Street address of property which is the subject of this appeal:
365 Washington Avenue
Overlay zoning (H-l, Historic District, or H-2, Neighborhood Preservation District)
ofproperty(ies) which is the subject of this appeal: H-2
Date the heating before the Architectural Review Board was held at which the
decision being appealed was made: March 11, 2004
o
Section of the Code of the City of Roanoke under which the Certificate of
Appropriateness was requested from the Architectural Review Board (Section 36.1-
327 ifil-1 or Section 36.1.345 if H-2): Section 36.1-345
Description of the request for which the Certificate of Appropriateness was sought
from the Architectural Review Board: The Petitioner replaced the roof on
the structure without seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness. The action was
done innocently. A metal roof was replaced with asphalt shingles. The former
metal roof was in a state of disrepair.
Grounds for appeal: The Architectural Review Board denied the Certificate of
Appropriateness. The staff comments were thatthe Petitioner replaced the roof
prior to advising the City staff and, thus, the staff had no opportunity to assess
the pre-existing condition. The Petitioner submits that there was a definite and
immediate need to replace the roof, and that the replacement roof is appropriate
in that it is similar to other roofs which have received a Certificate of
Appropriateness.
C:\Documents and Settings\Rhodney\Yvly Documents\rct~Tozier ARB APPEALdoc Page 1 of 2
Name, title, address and telephone number of person(s) who will represent the
Petitioner(s) before City Council: Edward A. Natt, Esq., 3912 Electric Road,
Roanoke, VA 24018, 540-725-8180
WHEREFORE, your Petitioner requests that the action of the Architectural Review
Board be reversed or modified and that a Certificate of Appropriateness be granted.
OWNER/PETITIONER:
PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATIVE:
RHODNEY TOZIER and TRAVIS TOZIER
d/b/a COMMUNITY PROPERTIES, LLC
Rhodney Tozier
Travis Tozier
Edward A. Natt, Esq.
Received by: / k,~ ~ ~. '[ ~2__, Date:
C:\Documents and Settings\Rhodney'dvly Documents~rct~Tozier ARB APPEAL. doc Page 2 of 2
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
April 20, 2004
Stephanie M. Moon,CMC
Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of Council:
I am enclosing copy of a Petition for Appeal filed by Edward A. Natt, Attorney
representing RhodneyTozier and Travis Tozier, d/b/a Community Properties, LLC, in
connection with a decision of the Architectural Review Board to deny issuance of a
Certificate of Appropriateness with regard to property located at 365 Washington
Avenue, S. W. The petition was filed in the City Clerk's Office on Friday, April 9, 2004.
Section 36.1-642, Review Procedure, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended,
provides that any property owner aggrieved by any decision of the Architectural Review
Board may present to the City Council a petition appealing such decision, provided
such petition is filed within 30 days after the decision is rendered by the Board. The
Council shall schedule a public meeting and render a decision on the matter within 60
calendar days of receipt of the petition. Council may reverse or modify the decision of
the Architectural Review Board, in whole or in part, or it may refer the matter back to
the Board or affirm the decision of the Board.
With the concurrence of Council, I will include the Petition for Appeal on the Thursday,
May 20, 2004, 7:00 p.m., City Council agenda.
With kindest regards, I am
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ew
N:\CKEWI\PUBL[C HEARINGS 2004La, PRIL 04~APPEAL TO ARB\RHODNEY TOZIER AND TRAVIS TOZIER COMMUNITY
PROPERTIES.DOC
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Roanoke City Council
April 20, 2004
Page 2
Enclosure
pc:
Jacki Canaday, President, Old Southwest, Inc.
424 Washington Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Edward N. Natt, Attorney, Osterhoudt, Prillaman, Natt, Helscher, Yost,
Maxwell and Ferguson, P.L.C., P. O. Box 20487, Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Darlene L Burcham, City Manager
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
Robert B. Townsend, Director, Planning, Building and Development
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, Architectural Review Board
Robert A. Clement, Jr., Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership, Neighborhood
Development Specialist
H:\PUBLIC HEARINGS 2004~APRIL 04~APPEAL TO ARB\RHODNEY TOZIER AND TRAVlS TOZIER COMMUNITY PROPERTIES.DOC
VIRGINIA:
IN THE coUNcIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE
IN THE MATTER OF
RHODNEY TOZIER and TRAVIS TOZIER
dPo/a COMMUNITY PROPERTIES, LLC
PETITION FOR APPEAL
This is a Petition for Appeal from a decision of the Architectural Review Board under
Section 36.1-642(d) of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as
amended.
1. Name of Petitioner(s):
Rhodney Tozier and Travis Tozier
2. Doing business as (if applicable): d/b/a Community Properties, LLC
Street address of property which is the subject of this appeal:
365 Washington Avenue
Overlay zoning (H-I, Historic District, or H-2, Neighborhood Preservation District)
of property(les) which is the subject of this appeal: H-2
Date the heating before the Architectural Review Board was held at which the
decision being appealed was made: March 11, 2004
Section of the Code of the City of Roanoke under which the Certificate of
Appropriateness was requested from the Architectural Review Board (Section 36.1-
327 ifil-1 or Section 36.1.345 if H-2): Section 36.1-345
Description of the request for which the Certificate of Appropriateness was sought
from the Architectural Review Board: The Petitioner replaced the roof on
the structure without seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness. The action was
done innocently. A metal roof was replaced with asphalt shingles. The former
metal roof was in a state of disrepair.
Grounds for appeal: The Architectural Review Board denied the Certificate of
Appropriateness. The staff comments were that the Petitioner replaced the roof
prior to advising the City staff and, thus, the staff had no opportunity to assess
the pre-existing condition. The Petitioner submits that there was a definite and
immediate need to replace the roof, and that the replacement roof is appropriate
in that it is similar to other roofs which have received a Certificate of
Appropriateness.
C:\Documents and Settings\Rhodney~My Documents\rctWozier ARB APPEAL. doc Page 1 of 2
Name, title, address and telephone number of person(s) who will represent the
Petitioner(s) before City Council: Edward A. Natt, Esq., 3912 Electric Road,
Roanoke, VA 24018, 540-725-8180
WHEREFORE, your Petitioner requests that the action of the Architectural Review
Board be reversed or modified and that a Certificate of Appropriateness be granted.
OWNER/PETITIONER:
PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATIVE:
RHODNEY TOZIER and TRAVIS TOZIER
d/b/a COMMUNITY PROPERTIES, LLC
Rhodney Tozier
Travis Tozier
Edward A. Natt, Esq.
TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY ~:
Received by: /~~ ~'0'7 ~ Date:
C:\Documents and Settings\Rhodney~My Documents\rct\Tozier ARB APPEAL.doc Page 2 of 2
03/~B/20134 11:55 5413342G282 FIOVIE STARZ GC)I~P
R6anoke Architectural Review Board
Request for Certificate of Appropriateness
Date of Application:
Property address:
Property owner:
Name:
Address:
Phone: ~ -Z2 ~
Representati~ (contractor or agent):
N~me: ~"~' ~
Address:
PAGE 85
ROANOKE
Phone:
(~) Description of Work:
Include details of construction, dimensions, and the materials that will be used. Attach supporting
information to the application (e.g. scaled drawing, I)hotographs, and samples).
(~'Signature of owner (required)
Section below to be completed by staff
Tax Parcel Number:
Zoning District:
Overlay district: [] H1
Other approvals needed:
[] Zoning Permit
[] Building Permit
[] Other
[] H2
Approval By:
Approved:
[] ARB [] Secretary
Date:
Agent, Architectural Review Board
Certificate Number:
B3[?E/2B04 11:55 54B3426202 MOVIE STARZ CORP PAGE
Description of Work
I am requesting a certificate of appropriateness to replace the roof at 365 Washington
Avenue. I apologize for not submitting this request in advance of performing the work. l
didn't realize that it was a requirement to acquire a certificate of appropriateness before
replacing the roof at this address. Otherwise, I would have requested this certificate well
in advance.
The prior roof at 365 Washington Avenue had pin holes in it i.*. hundreds of places.
These holes were visible in the attic and were a result of many years of rust. This rust
wasn't visible £rom the street because the roof had been painted on the outside covering
the mst. The roof was rusting from the inside out. Th.e rust was causing leaks, whj. cb if
allowed to contj. Bue, would have resulted in major damage to the house. According to the
roofer I chose to perform the work, the roof couldn't be repaired. The only option was to
replace the roof. The replacemenl roof is a shingled roof similar to every other home on
its side of the block. Thc shingle that was used was an architectural shingle and is an
upgrade over a standard 3 tab shingle that is used on many shingle roof*.
I located thc roofer that I used (Tony Barnes) while be was replacing a roof at 409
Washington Avenue. This house was in a similar situation as my house. It had an
existing metal roof and was replaced with a shingle roof. According to Tony, my metal
roof was in worse shape than the metal roof at 409 Washington Avenue. Tony informed
me after my roof was replaced thai the home at 409 Washington had received a certificate
of appropriateness. He assumed that I had received this certificate as well.
Unfortunately, since I am not required to get a permit from the city to replace the roof
and I have never received any documentation of any kind concerning the historic
guidelines of this neighborhood, I didn't realize that there were specific gttidelines for
replaci.o.g a roof. Also, it didn't occttr to me that I couldn't replace the existing metal roof
with a shingle roof because this was already being done one block from my house, and
every other house on my block on my side of the street has a shingle roof. My intentions,
both now and in the future, are to continue to maintain an.d improve the home mherever
necessary. I now understand that this neighborhood has specific guidelines and I will
follow those guidelines and will seek the a~pproval of the Architectural Review' Board
before making any changes in the future. It is my hope that you will consider all of these
circumstances when making your decision regarding the certificate of appropriateness for
replacing the roof of this house.
Thank you in advance for considering this request. If you have any question.s or need
further informatiog, please feel free to contact me at 342-2244.
03/26/2004
ii:55 540342B282
HOVIE STARZ CORP
PAGE
365 Washington Avenue, SW -- 1t-2 District
. D. Request from Community Properties, represented by Rodney Tozier, for a
Certificate of Appropriateness approving an 'existing roof replacemen~-
Project Background and Description:
Mr. Tozier recently bought the house and replaced thc standing-seam metal roof with
asphalt si'fngles as was recommended by his contractor. Mr. Toz/er states that he was
not aware that he needed a Certificate of Appropriateness to change the roof material.
Hi.s contractor recently replaced a metal roofw/.th asphalt shingles on the same street;
but those owners had obtained a Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Tozier's metal ·
sheathing was replaced sometime over the weekend of January 3-5 and upon
inspection by staff on .January 7, the work was completed with equipment piled in the
back yard. The city GIS photograph of the house that was probably taken in October
of 2003 depicts the metal roof in good condition. ApparenQy, the roof had been
painted but according to the owner was resting from the inside out. The wrap-around
front porch remains standing-seam metal. (ha further note, since that GIS photograph
was taken, the red brick porch columns and knee walls have been painted, which is
not recommended by the H-2 Guidelines. The stucco on the.house Was painted, which
is acceptable, but also reflects a general makeover of the house. ' ' '
The owner states that the current asphalt shingles ate architectural grade and match .
the other roofs on his side of the street. While most of the roofs on the north side of
the street bare been changed to asphalt shingles, the south side has not.
Findings
Architectural styles am often identified bythe form and materials of the roof, which
is an knportant design feature. A well-maintained ro0f and gutter system will help
prevent the deterioration of other parts of a building. Changing, removing, or adding
materials or features to a mol can often alter or destroy a building's character.
The H-2 Architectural Guidelines recommends the following for roofs: · IdentifY and keep orig/nal mater/als and features of roofs.
· Do not ,emove historic roofing materials, such as slate, clay tile, wood
shingles, or metal, that are still in good overall condition.
· Keep standing seam roofs painted and all seams tightly crimped.
· When it is not feasible to replace standing-seam metal roofs with the same
materials, explore the use of prefabricated battaned-metal roof systems.
Staff Comments:
Staff cannot support the application because the owner had not contacted staff, who
therefore was not able to assess the pdor condi{ion of the roof, nor offer advice on
either its possible repair or the quality of the replacement material.
87
03/26/20B4 11:55 5403426202 NOVIE STARZ CORP PAGE 02
RR Item 3b Request fi`om the Communil7 Properties t'or an Certificate of Appropriateness approving
an existing roof replacement at 365 Washington Avenue.
KT Khodney Tozicr, member of Community Properties. I will be representing them today.
RK O.K- Did you say Rhodes, is it?
RT Kbodney Tozier
RR Oh Tozicr, yes allright. Do you have anythlng to add to wl~at you have done herc. Let's see. 1
don't see anything.
RT Basically, the changes to the proposal would be to remove the awning and 1 am requesting the
board help me make a decision on the existing porch roof. I am ablc to go tither way. If we want to keep
that in a metal and at,erupt to repair it, I am certainly open to that and I am open to making it consistent
with the shingled root'as well.
RR You are not proposing any modification to thi~ existing roof of the building?
RT Well, no. My reasoning to that i; that I had an architect come out and examine the roof. And
what he told me was that after looking it over, and hay/ag been there with him for about a half an hour, we
drove up and down the neighborhood. In our last meeting, We spoke specifically about seeing if we could
do some typc of valleys as well as putting in some sort of ridge caps in copper or some other material. His
recommendation was to avoid that because all that would do is draw attention to the roof and take away
from the roofs that are metal and slate that have those on there and would be out of character for any of the
other shingle roofs in the neighborhood.
RR Let me see if I understand correctly. I want to make sure that [ have got this right. I rsmcmber
last month when we were talking about the metal root.that preceeded thc existing roof. 1 believe you said
or thc prior owner said that if you went up in the attic you could see the holes or it was perforated. And
that suggests that thcre was no sheathing underneath that metal roof'. That you were actually looking atthe
metal roof' atzached to beams (not the word used. couldn't make it out but understood it to mean beams) in
the attic.
RT Yes, you could basically see daylight.
KR Now, also as I understand it that the q~etal roof did not come off. That this shingle root' is applied
on top of it.
RT No, [ believe it is off.
RR Well if the metal roof came off, did they put sheathing on underneatl~ it? Urn, given the speed in
which that shingle project or roofing project was done, it is hard for me to believe that that metal roof came
off of there.
RT Vv'¢ll, hclp me understand when you say speed, what ar¢ you referring to?
R.R It happened, ba.~ed on the repoi'L~ that we have, it happened very quickly. It was a day or two at
the most.
RT That's not accurate. I spoke with Anne (Beckett) several times about this. Someone, whoever
turned me in so to speak apparently on a Sunday, wa.~ whcn they said that roofing was being done and
actually it was done the whole week prior too. We actually had the roof work on a Sunday because the
following week there were going to be several days of rain. And we wanted to gct it completed on Sunday.
So it took at least a week from start to finish to complete the roof'.
03/26/20D4 11:55 5a03426202 MOVIE STARZ CDRP PAGE 03
RR 1'11 take your word for it. Any qucstlons from the board?
HW I'd just l/kc to makca comment, t have been, since our meeting, privy to several fairly long
discussions about the pros and cons of this. Although l can understand the situation that yon are put in, and
I don't think it is for our board to find fault or any of that, we are here and are charged to detcrminc ifthcrc
has been a proper fit or an appropriate fit, But along with that comes the messagc that comes with allowing
something to happen as I mentioned last time, one of our particular charges besides just preserving tile
stroetscape and individual facades of notc or details of materials and unfortunately metal roofs, either
standing seam or the scott metal roofs or slate roofs and terra cotes roofs are rare endangered species in the
ncighborhood and we need to fight like crazy for them. Unfortunately, I think this is one of thc examples
that I stated last time where if we have ever been caught between a rock and a hard place, we were caught
betwe~.'n a rock and a hard place har~ because the alternative which we would fight in many cases would bc
t.o tell the owner that we simply do not agree with it and that the application was not simpathetic to the
original materials or thc character of the house. And jtlst literally turn that down. I think that one point
came out in some of the discussion that I was witness to was that whatever our decision is is that this board
needs to take this as an example of us taking action t o see what we can do in the fi~turc to catch projccts
before they get lbls far along. Whether there is e guilty party or an uninformed party, there are certain
elements that go tmrecognized because they are not required to have a building permit. And whatever that
legislation or whatever it is that we get to do or need to be able to do, wa'ye got to take this one, I fee[ that
wc aced to see this one set an example that will lead us to come up with some type of action so that we can
better enforca the niles. Particularly the oncs that, so callcd slip through thc cracks, and I am not pointing
any blamc but this is just the situation. This is one of the biggest violations that l have seen. With that
said, my particular feeling on this, l agree with the assessment that adding additional detail to either tha
ridges or the valley of the existing shingle roof would draw more attention to it. However, I do feel that the
standing seam metal on the porch is still significant material. It is the predominate material on porchas and
therefore should be repaired appropriately and then the awnings come offas proposed.
RT I would llke to keep the metal porch roof as w~ll. When I drove through the neighborhood and
looked at the various combinations of house roofs versus porch roofs, the predominate nnmber of asphalt
shingled roofs that have porch roofs are ~i]l metal. And I think it would be consistent with what is on that
strait right now. ]t is my opinion, and we would do everything that we could to keep that mom[.
RR Any other questions from the board? Any staffcomments? Anyone in the audience that would
like to speak to this issue? We)l, speaking only for myself, I cannot support this request because that roof
was not only inappropriate in terms of its contribution to the neighborhood, but we have proper'by owne~
in the neighborhood who are making the investment to do their roofs right and consistcnt with thc historic
district and I don't consider it fair game to allow people to slide in an not ask and not receive consultation.
And follow the appropriate procedures. As much a.~ 1 dislike that awning, it will come off somcday
regardless. Therefore, I will not support this position. Any other comments from the board2
RT Can i make a comment as well, Mr. Richert?
PR, Let's find out if anyone else from the board has a commune7
RT 1 don't really know how to approach this but, ! understand the disdain that you have and
apparently others have with the transformation that has taken placc at this house, Much like Mr. Harwood
said, there needs to be something pt~t in place. I totally understand that you were put in a difficult position
here. But I also think that the board needs to realize that i am not the only individual that has moved into
that neighborhood and has no clua, none, no idea what the guidelines are. And apparently, unless you are
using a real estate agent, and you arc at thc mercy of that real estate agent, giving you all the guidelines of
what to follow, you cannot do anything. I am in that situation now. I didn't buy the home through a real
estate agent, I bought it from an individual, l did not purposely violate any guidelines at any time and I
would ask MS. B¢ckeO: speak on behalf. I have done eve~Tthlng l can do to make this process e~ier, l
have offered up ~very bit of information that I can provide. And maybe that doesn't matter. But I think
that Ms. Beckett could say that T have probably b~'n one of the easlcr pcoplc that she has worked with in
this process. And while 1 am in apparently blatant violation of the guidelines, [ can honestly say that I
03/26/2004 11:55 540342B202 MOVIE STORZ CORP PAGE 04
didn't intend to do that. And that ifI could do it all over again T'd call Ms. Beckett fi'om day one. F~ut l
can't do that now. $o I understand that you have to make a judgement call and ii'you choose not to
approve what wc have done here and what we're proposing to do, [ would like a recommendation on how
to move forward.
RR You'll have an opportunity to discuss it after the board takes its action. Any other comments from
board members. Ms. Franklin please call thc roll.
MF Mr. Harwood
HW Approved
MF Ms. Blanton
AB No
MF Mr. Schlueter
JL
MF Mr. Stephenson
JS No
MF Mr. Richert
RR No. You'll have an oppor~unlty to talk to Ms. l~eckel~ about your options at this point. Your
application has been denied.
RT Thank you for your time.
KR Thank you.
RT ~' Rhodney Tozier
RR = Robert Richer~ AKB Chairman
HW = Donald Harwood
AB = Alison Blanton
JL -- Jamas SchJueter
J$ =Jon Stephenson
MF -- Martha Franklin
SUGGESTED MOTION TO AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE CITY OF
ROANOKE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AND TO DENY THE REQUEST
FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE ROOF REPLACEMENT AT
365 WASHINGTON AVENUE.
"Based upon the evidence (testimony and documents) presented to this Council at
today's hearing, I move that the decision of the City of Roanoke Architectural Review Board
on April 13, 2004, be affirmed and that no Certificate of Appropriateness be issued for the
roof replacement at 365 Washington Avenue, as set forth in the Petition for Appeal, on the
grounds that the proposed installation would not be compatible with the architectural
defining features of the building."
Or
SUGGESTED MOTION TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE CITY OF
ROANOKE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AND TO GRANT THE REQUEST
FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE ROOF REPLACEMENT AT
365 WASHINGTON AVENUE.
"Based upon the evidence (testimony and documents) presented to this Council at
today's hearing, I move that the decision of the City of Roanoke Architectural Review Board
on April 13, 2004, be reversed and that a Certificate of Appropriateness be issued for the roof
replacement at 365 Washington Avenue, as set forth in the Petition for Appeal, on the ground
that the proposed installation would be compatible with the architectural defining features of
the building."
H:~kRB/MOTIONS- 365 WAS?IlNGTON DOC
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk~ci.roanokc.va.us
May 25, 2003
File #249
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
Mr. Steven Duggar
717 Highland Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Dear Mr Dugger:
Your petition appealing a decision of the Architectural Review Board for a
Certificate of Appropriateness with regard to property located at 717 Highland
Avenue, S. W., was before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting
which was held on Thursday, May 20, 2004.
Based on evidence, testimony and documents, Council voted to affirm the decision
of the City of Roanoke Architectural Review Board on April 8, 2004, that no
Certificate of Appropriateness be issued for the replacement of vinyl windows, as
set forth in the Petition of Appeal, on the grounds that the installation is not
compatible with the architectural defining features of the building.
Sincerely,
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SMM:ew
Mr. Steven Dugger
May 25, 2004
Page 2
pc:
Jackie Canday, President, Old Southwest, 424 Washington Avenue, S. W.,
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
R. Brian Townsend, Director, Planning, Building and Development
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, Architectural Review Board
CITY OF ROANOKE
PLANNING BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 166
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (540) 853-1730 Fax: (540) 853-1230
E-mail: planning~ci.roanoke.va.us
Architectural Review Board
Board nf Zoning Appeals
Planning ( ommission
May 20, 2004
Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Vice Mayor
Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member
Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council:
Subject:
Steve Dugger Appeal of
Architectural Review Board Decision
717 Highland Avenue, S.W.
Background:
In February 2004, a citizen advised staffthat the original wooden windows had
been replaced with vinyl windows on the house at 717 Highland Avenue, S.W.,
which is within the H-2, Neighborhood Preservation District. Ms. Anne Beckett,
Architectural Review Board (ARB) Agent, contacted Mr. Steve Dugger, the owner
and resident of the property. She met with Mr. Dugger on-site to discuss the
project and arrange for the required design review.
The 1931, brick, Bungalow-style house is in excellent condition as a single-family
residence. The original windows had exterior wooden muntins on the upper sash
that created a six-over-one pattern, which is an architecturally defining feature of
the building. The new windows have only interior muntins, or shallow grids
sandwiched between the panes of glass.
Mr. Dugger advised staff that he was unaware that a Certificate of
Appropriateness was required for replacing windows. Staff advised that
replacement windows have been permitted in the H-2 district, if they have the
same design as the original windows, and the architecturally defining features of
the building are maintained. The project was not using materials of like design
and therefore required ARB approval. Mr. Dugger has made numerous
improvements to the house and property, and had previously worked with the
Agent to obtain an administrative Certificate of Appropriateness for a rear
gazebo.
Mr. Dugger filed an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (See
Application: Attachment A). On March 11, 2004, the Architectural Review Board
(ARB) considered the application (See Minutes: Attachment B).
At the ARB meeting, Mr. Dugger stated that he changed the windows because of
the coal dust and noise from the adjacent railroad tracks. Mr. Don Harwood, ARB
member, stated that there are replacement windows available that could match
the same configuration and shadow line as the original window, and advised that
new muntins be installed on the exterior of the windows. The building contractor,
Paul Graybill, stated that the new windows were appropriate to the H-2
Guidelines. He further stated that he could have muntins milled and added to the
exterior of the replacement windows if that was the issue.
Mr. Robert Richert, ARB Chair, concurred with Mr. Harwood and suggested a
continuance in order to consider other options for the muntins. Mr. Dugger
agreed and requested that the matter be continued to the next month.
On April 8, 2004, the ARB again considered Mr. Dugger's application (See
Minutes: Attachment D).
Mr. Graybill appeared before the Board on behalf of Mr. Dugger and was
requesting approval of the windows. He stated that the window manufacturer
could not provide an exterior muntin for the windows. Mr. Harwood agreed that it
would be difficult to custom make muntins that required gluing if the window
manufacturer could not provide it. Mr. Marietta then moved to approve the
replacement of all windows in the house except for the four unchanged windows.
Ms. Blanton seconded the motion.
Mr. Richert indicted his objection to the replacement windows, and said that he
could not support the application. Mr. Manetta also added that if the applicant
had read the H-2 Guidelines then he should have known to apply for a COA, and
that he too could not accept the application.
There being no further discussion, a roll call was taken on the request. The
motion to approve the application failed by a 3-3 vote. Mr. Dugger was formally
notified of the denial and of his right to appeal to City Council by letter dated April
9, 2004. Mr. Dugger filed an appeal of the Architectural Review Board's decision
on April 19, 2004 (Attachment D).
Considerations:
Section 36.1-345(c) of the Zoning Ordinance provides:
"The replacement of...windows...shall not require a certificate of
appropriateness, provided that such installation or replacement is
performed using materials which are of the same design as those on the
2
building, structure or landmark, and provided that such installation or
replacement maintains the architectural defining features of the building,
structure or landmark.
The materials being used were not of the same design as the original material
and the architectural defining features of the building were not maintained as a
result of the project. The project, therefore, required a Certificate of
Appropriateness.
The H-2 Architectural Design Guidelines adopted by the ARB and endorsed by
City Council state that windows and doors are especially important in
rehabilitation. Their size, shape, pattern, and amhitectural style not only provide
architectural character but also give a building much of its scale, and detail. The
guidelines further recommend the following be considered specifically when
evaluating windows:
· Identify and keep the original materials and features of windows,
such as size, shape, glazing, muntins, and moldings.
· Consider new replacement windows only when old replacements
are unavailable. New replacements should be compatible in size
and shape, design, and proportion.
· Use storm windows to improve thermal efficiency of existing
windows.
Since January 1, 2000, there have been 15 window replacement approvals in the
H-2 District (one from the ARB and 14 Administratively).
Recommendation:
The Architectural Review Board recommends that City Council affirm the ARB
decision to deny the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Sincerely,
R ~'~/~J'obert N. Richert~
Architectural Review Board
CC:
Dadene L. Burcham, City Manager
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
R. Brian Townsend, Director, Planning Building and Development
Anne S. Beckett, Agent, Architectural Review Board
3
ATTACHMENT A
Roanoke Architectural Rev' 'f Board
'Request for Certificate of Appropriateness
(~ Date of Application:
(~) Property address:
Property owner:
Name: ~ ,_~
Representative (contractor or agent):
Name:
Address:
ROANOKE
Phone:
(~) Description of Work:
Include details of construction, dimensions, and the materials that will be used. Attach supporting
information to the application (e.g. scaled drawing, photographs, and samples).
Signature of owner (required)
Section below to be completed by staff
Approval By: ~ ARB [] Secretary
Approved:
Agent, Architectural Review Board
Tax Parcel Number:
Zoning District:
Overlay district: [] H1
Other approvals needed:
[] Zoning Permit
[] Building Permit
[] Other
Date: ~Z,?--~,o~-
Certificate Number:
ATTACHMENT B
Architectural Review Board Minutes
March 11, 2004
Page 3
Mr. T,c~ier said that he understood the disdain the Board had with the
transf.oi~ation of the house. He said there needed to be something in
place to I~ep this from happening to other homeowners. He said that he
was not, th~,only person who had moved into the neighborhood and not
had _a~c~l,ue a~.o,ut the regulations. He said he did not purposely violate
any of the gui'~elines. He said that if the Board chose not to approve the
reques, t, hewo _~!ke to know how to move forward.
There being no fur~er discussion, a roll call vote was taken on the
request. The Certifi~e was denied by a vote of 4-1, as follows:
x
Mr. Harwood - yes~.
Mrs. Blanton - no ~
Mr. Schleuter- no ~
Mr. Stephenson - no X
Mr. Richert - no
Mr. Richert advised Mr. Tozier that he could speak with Anne Beckett
about his options.
Request from Steven Duqger for a Certificate of Appropriateness
approvinq an existing window replacement at 717 Hiqhland
Avenue, S.W.
Mr. Richert asked Mr. Dugger if he had anything to add to his application.
Mr. Dugger said that he had changed the windows because of the dust
and noise from the adjacent railroad tracks. He said that he did not know
he needed approval from the Board for windows. He said he did get a
Certificate from the Board last year when he built a deck.
Mr. Harwood said that there was a problem with having replacement
windows that match the same configuration and shadow line as the
original window. He said that Mr. Dugger's replacement windows had no
shadow line. He asked if the manufacturer could provide a muntin bar
for the windows.
Mr. Paul Graybill, builder, appeared before the Board and said that he
might be able to get that done. He said that the Board's guidelines say
that what he had installed was appropriate. He said he could have a
muntin milled and painted if that was the issue. He said he did not
change the opening.
Architectural Review Board Minutes
March ] 1,2004
Page 4
Mr. Richert said that there was a significant problem because without the
muntins, the appearance from the street was altered. He said that at this
point, the Board did not have any alternative to consider. He said that the
applicant could go forward with the application and take his chances or
he could request the matter be tabled and come back next month after
he has an opportunity to explore more options.
Mr. Dugger said he could continue the matter.
Mr. Richert asked if there was anyone in the audience to speak.
Mr. Mark Kary (813 5'h Street,S.W.) appeared before the Board and said
that this issue pointed out a communication problem. He said the Board
needed to be sensitive to having materials accessible to homeowners.
There was further discussion of the size ora muntin and its application to
the exterior of the window.
Ms. Blanton commented that windows were a big element in looking at a
house. She said that exterior muntins were more important than interior
ones for the presence of the house on the street. She said she
appreciated all the work that had been done on the house, but the
window element was missing.
Mr. Graybill said he was certain he could have something made up to add
to the window.
Mr. Dugger said he had seen the same window replacement at 5'h and
Washington and that they were appropriate.
There being no further discussion, the matter was continued until the
Board's April meeting.
5. Request Rom Kevin Hurley Photoqraphy for a Certificate of
Al~DroDriateness approvinq a wood fence at 1360 Maple Avenue,
S.W. e, .~h d
Mr. Hurley said h been working with Ms. Beckett on the app cat on
and would be glad t.o~nswer any questions. Mr. Hurley said that the
purpose of the fencing~as to protect some of the landscaping as we as
the children and o_the~s h~would be photographing. He sa d that he
would be adding finials tootle fencing and proposed to paint the fence to
match the house.~
City Architectural Review Board
April 8, 2004
Page 2
ATTACHMENT C
Mr. Manetta clarified that the Board was acting on the single ramp.
Pastor Nixon stated that was correct.
Ir. Harwood asked if the handrail would be made of wood.
~r Nixon responded that it was going to be a treated wood painted
whi'
Ms.
reminded the Board that they had received a drawing of the
esign.
Mr. Harw questioned whether lattice was planned.
Pastor Nixon
the ramp.
reed that the lattice would abut the vertical members of
Mr. Richert askE
audience comment.
There being none, iewed that the Board was acting on the diagram
dated February 27, the details of the ramp in the original
application. He said the would be flush metal with flaming around
it and that there would b, ,d lattice underneath the ramp.
Mr. Harwood suggested
adjacent wall, that the width
window casing.
the door would face the window on the
framing could match that of the
There being no further discussion,-~,motion was made by Alison Blanton to
approve the request as described. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Manetta and approved 6-0.
Request from Steven Duqger for a Certificate of Appropriateness
approvinq an existinq window replacement at 717 Hiqhland
Avenue, S.W.
Mr. Paul Graybill appeared before the Board on behalf of Mr. Dugger. He
said that he was Mr. Dugger's contractor and was requesting approval of
the windows. He said that he had contacted the window manufacturer
about adding a piece to the windows to product a shadow line, as
requested by the Board last month. He said that he had been told that
there was nothing that could be added to the window without being
glued. Mr. Graybill referred to ARB minutes from Williamsburg which
contained information about the replacement window issue. Mr. Graybill
City Architectural Review Board
April 8, 2004
Page 3
said that Ideal Lumber had told him they could make something from
wood and he could attach that to the window. He discussed the size and
the fact that the glue would yellow in time.
Mr. Richert asked for Board comment.
Mr. Harwood said that the piece would have to be about %" thick and if it
was glued, he would be concerned about accelerated deterioration also.
He said that his personal opinion was that in this case the solution the
Board was asking for was probably going to be one that was going to be
a high maintenance and difficult to keep in good shape. Mr. Harwood
said this was another good example of something that easily falls
through the cracks when a building permit is not required for window
replacement. He suggested that a possible Code amendment be
pursued.
Ms. Blanton also added that Mr. Graybill had thought he had met the
criteria set forth in the guidelines, however, the Board was looking for a
level of detail that was not as explicit as that set forth in the guidelines.
She suggested he guidelines be reviewed for clarity.
Mr. Richert asked for further comments from the Board. There being
none, he asked for staff comments.
Ms. Beckett said that she supported the action of the Board.
Mr. Richert said that the application simply said replacement windows.
Mr. Graybill said that he still had four new windows that had not been
installed because he was waiting on the Board.
Mr. Richert questioned whether the two windows on the East side of the
house were being replaced.
Mr. Graybill responded that they were ornamental windows beside the
chimney and were not going to be replaced.
Mrs. Blanton asked if the four windows that were going to be replaced
were still on the house.
Mr. Graybill said they were.
Mrs. Blanton asked if they were the same size as the ones on the front.
City Architectural Review Board
April 8, 2004
Page 4
Mr. Graybill said they were not.
Mrs. Blanton asked if they could be used on the dormers on the front.
Mr. Graybill said they could not.
There was continued discussion about which windows have been replaced
and where the four windows were located that had not been replaced.
Mr. Graybill said that the four or five windows left were on the rear of the
house and the windows next to the chimney were not going to be
replaced. He said that windows for the rear had been ordered and were
on-site, ready for installation.
Ms. Botkin asked if the windows next to the chimney were going to be
painted.
Mr. Graybill said he was going to paint everything. He said that he had
done work on many homes in the Old Southwest area and was very aware
of how to do the work in the neighborhood.
Mr. Richert asked for further comments. There being none, Mr. Harwood
made a motion that the Board approve the existing replacement windows
that have been installed as well as the windows that have been ordered
and are on-site and scheduled to be installed, but limited to two windows
only and any future windows that they don't already have the material for
will have to be in a separate application.
Mr. Townsend said it would be simpler to say all the in the house that
have either been or intended to be replaced except for the two windows
flanking the chimneys and the windows in the basement.
Mr. Harwood said he did not think the applicant was willing to accept
splitting the future with what's already been put in. He said he would
withdraw his motion.
Mr. Manetta said that he thought the applicant had said those were the
things he was not going to do but the application does not say that. He
said that the application reads he will replace every last window.
Mr. Manetta then moved an amendment to approve the replacement of all
windows in the house except the two windows flanking the chimney and
the windows in the basement.
Mrs. Blanton seconded the motion
City Architectural Review Board
April 8, 2004
Page 5
Mr. Richert said that the problem he had was the one he always had with
replacement windows, particularly when the owner does not come and
talk to the staff in advance. He said this was always difficult but he could
not support what is going to end up here and this house will then
become an example for the next person that comes on and the next
person and this removal of the texture and coming in after the fact and
asking for approval is simply unacceptable. He said there were windows
that could be purchased that would meet our requirements; they're more
expensive, but of course, because that's the way a quality product that is
consistent with the historic character of the houses and street faces in
the H-2 neighborhood. He said it makes it even more difficult when the
applicant chooses not to come and make his own case, therefore, he said
he would not support the motion.
Mr. Manetta said he made the motion for clarification purposes, but
noted that the representative of the applicant indicated that he had
gotten copies of the materials for windows and doors to take back to the
owner of the property to show examples. He said that if the owner had in
fact reviewed these and thought he did not need to come before the
Board, the language that is in the guidelines, whether counsel might
agree with the language or not, clearly says that replacing missing doors
and windows with new ones that duplicate the originals includes
materials and colors; so even though it might be questionable whether or
not in this day and age whether we would continue to do that, we have
not changed the guidelines as they relate to windows and doors. He said
that would alert him, if he was a contractor and about to make those
changes and knew about the Certificate of Appropriateness process, as
Mr. Graybill has said he has known about for many years, then he would
be taking a very serious chance in light of all the education and
knowledge he had about both the Board and the guidelines. He said that
Mr. Graybill had probably made the changes knowing full well that the
guidelines did not agree with what he was doing. He said that with that
in mind he was not willing to accept an application that did not go back
and fairly replace the materials in a manner that did not change the
architectural appearance and context of the building.
Mr. Talevi asked if there was a second.
Mr. Manetta said there was a second to the motion to amend.
Mrs. Franklin stated that Mrs. Blanton had seconded the motion.
City Architectural Review Board
April 8, 2004
Page 6
Mr. Richert asked for further comments.
comments, Mr. Richert asked for roll call.
roll call vote of 3-3, as follows:
There being no further
The request was denied by a
Ms. Botkin - yes
Mr. Harwood - yes
Mrs. Blanton - yes
Mr. Manetta- no
Mr. Stephenson - no
Mr. Richert - no
4. Request from Claude N. Smith, represented by Say' On Siqns, for a
of Appropriateness approvinq a siqn at 19 Salem
S.E.
Mr. Choy, ~rietor of business at 19 Salem Avenue, S.E., and Bruce
Brown from On Signs, appeared before the Board.
Mr. Richert aske if there was anything to add to the application.
Mr. Choy said the was not.
Mr. Stephenson what part of the sign was going to be painted and
which part was going be neon.
Mr. Brown explained th he purple would be paint, the yellow would be
vinyl and the red outline .uld be neon.
Mr. Richert asked for f
omments.
Ms. Botkin said she had no :rns about the sign, but asked if the
owner was planning to change color of the material of the awning.
Mr. Choy responded that he was going to change the awning.
Mr. Stephenson asked if the colors any symbolic meaning.
Mr. Choy said that they were the nationa~X~olors of Thailand.
Mr. Stephenson said that, in his opinion th~ar~e was a conflict wth the
color of the sign and awning, however, he understood that color was a
matter of taste. ~
Mr. Richert asked for comments from staff. \
ATTACHMENT D
VIRGINIA;
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE
IN THE MATTER OF
)
)
)
)
PETITION FOR APPEAL
This is a Petition for Appeal from a decision of the Architectural Review
Board under Section 36.1-642(d) of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City
of Roanoke (1979), as amended.
1. Name of Petitioner(s): S~-'--~*-~z-¢''- ~ t.~..~ crc_
2. Doing business as (if applicable):
Street address .of I~roper, ty which is the subject of this appeal:
Overlay zoning (H-l, Historic District, or H-2, Neighborhood Preservation
District) of property(les) which is the subject of this appeal:
Date the hearing before the Architectural Review Board was held at which
the decision being appealed was made:
Section of the Code of the City of Roanoke under which the Certificate of
Appropriateness was requested from the Architectural Review Board
(Section 36.1-327 if H-1 or Section 36.1-345 if H-2):
7. Description of the request for which the Certificate of Appropriateness w.a.s i
sought.from the Architectural .Review Board' ('r--.,L¢,(.c~¢.~.~o ...k'..'.q ~J, ;. -xCf I
8. Gro~nds for appeal: ~ ~.~:o~e...~ ~ 'c.~:L -~-A~,.¢,
Name, title, address and telephone number of person(s) who will
represent Re Pe.titio. ner(s) before.City Council: ~ ~ j.~,¥i~-r' ~/O~.~-~r~
WHEREFORE, your Petitioner(s) requests that the action of the
Architectural Review Board be reversed or modified and that a Certificate of
Appropriateness be granted.
Signature of Owner(s)
(If not Petitioner):
(print or type) ~'"
Signature of Petitioner(s) or
representative(s), where
applicable:
Name:
(print or type)
Name:
(print or type)
Name:
(print or type)
TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY C~tK:
Received by:
Date:
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
April 20, 2004
Stephanie M. Moon,CMC
Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of Council:
I am enclosing copy of a Petition for Appeal filed bySteven Dugger in connection with
a decision of the Architectural Review Board to deny issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness with regard to property located at 717 Highland Avenue, S. W. The
petition was filed in the City Clerk's Office on Monday, April 19, 2004.
Section 36.1-642, Review Procedure, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended,
provides that any property owner aggrieved by any decision of the Architectural Review
Board may present to the City Council a petition appealing such decision, provided
such petition is filed within 30 days after the decision is rendered by the Board. The
Council shall schedule a public meeting and render adecision on the matter within 60
calendar days of receipt of the petition. Council may reverse or modify the decision of
the Architectural Review Board, in whole or in part, or it may refer the matter back to
the Board or affirm the decision of the Board.
With the concurrence of Council, Iwill include the Petition for Appeal on the Thursday,
May 20, 2004, 7:00 p.m., City Council agenda.
With kindest regards, I am
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ew
H:\PUBLIC HEARINGS 2004~APRIL 04~APPEAL TO ARB\STEVEN DUGGER 717 HIGHLAND AVE SW.DOCSteven Dugger 717 Highland
Avenue SW.doc
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Roanoke City Council
April 20, 2004
Page 2
Enclosure
pc:
Mr. StevenDuggar, 717 Highland Avenue, S.W.,Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Jacki Canaday, President, Old Southwest, Inc.
424 Washington Avenue, S. W.,.Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
Robert B. Townsend, Director, Planning, Building and Development
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, Architectural Review Board
Robert A. Clement, Jr., Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership, Neighborhood
Development Specialist
H:\PUBLIC HEARINGS 2004LAPRIL 04LAPPEAL TO ARB\STEVEN DUGGER 717 HIGHLAND AVE SW.DOCSteven Dugger 717
Highland Avenue SW,doc
VIRGINIA;
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE
IN THE MATTER OF
PETITION FOR APPEAL
This is a Petition for Appeal from a decision of the Architectural Review
Board under Section 36.1-642(d) of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City
of Roanoke (1979), as amended.
1. Name of Petitioner(s): S~-'-~-~-,''- ~ t.~..~% ~.~
2. Doing business as (if applicable):
Street address of proper~y which is the subject of this appeal:
q ,q
Overlay zoning (H-l, Historic District, or H-2, Neighborhood Preservation
District) of property(les) which is the subject of this appeal:
Date the hearing before the Architectural Review Board was held at which
the decision being appealed was made: ~ ~:::~.) ~.o~
Section of the Code of the City of Roanoke under which the Certificate of
Appropriateness was requested from the Architectural Review Board
(Section 36.1-327 if H-1 or Section 36.1-345 if H-2):
7. Description of the request for which the Certificate of Appropriateness was
sought,from the Architectural ,Review Board: ('_r'--~p (-~.~.~.~.k-.g ~ L.'~
8. Gro,u,.nd, fo, r appeal: ~ ~<~)~e.~) S -o.~ '~-¢'
Name, title, address and telephone number of person(s) who will
represent the Petitioner(s) before City Council' ~ ~ i~ g. ~,t,¢,
WHEREFORE, your Petitioner(s) requests that the action of the
Architectural Review Board be reversed or modified and that a Certificate of
Appropriateness be granted.
Signature of Owner(s)
(If not Petitioner):
(print or type)
Signature of Petitioner(s) or
representative(s), where
applicable:
Name:
(print or type)
Name:
(print or type)
Name:
(print or type)
TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY C,~K:
Received by: ~ ~ -2~' ~ ~
Date:
VIRGINIA;
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE
IN THE MATTER OF
PETITION FOR APPEAL
This is a Petition for Appeal from a decision of the Architectural Review
Board under Section 36.1-642(d) of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City
of Roanoke (1979), as amended.
1. Name of Petitioner(s): S~'"-'-,...,~-~ ~-,.
2. Doing business as (if applicable):
Street address of proper):y which is the subject of this appeal:
q fl
Overlay zoning (H-l, Historic District, or H-2, Neighborhood Preservation
District) of property(ies) which is the subject of this appeal:
Date the hearing before the Architectural Review Board was held at which
the decision being appealed was made: ~ ~::~) ~o~b
Section of the Code of the City of Roanoke under which the Certificate of
Appropriateness was requested from the Architectural Review Board
(Section 36.1-327 if H-1 or Section 36.1-345 if H-2):
7, Description of the request for which the Certifipate of Appropriateness was
sought,from th.e Architectural,Review Board' t/r--.~p(.~¢.~.~.g ~J t-'~V I
roHnds for appeal: ~ ~.-~o~e,~ ~ 'o.~-~'t~.¢ ~,~-~'-~,~
Name, title, address and telephone number of person(s) who will ..
represent t~he Petitioner(s) before City Council' ~ ~.~ ~..<5'~- (' o~-~--~
WHEREFORE, your Petitioner(s) requests that the action of the
Architectural Review Board be reversed or modified and that a Certificate of
Appropriateness be granted.
Signature of Owner(s)
(If not Petitioner):
Name: ~"~--b>.~.~ '~ ~.~o~..~ ~
(print or type) ~'~
Signature of Petitioner(s) or
representative(s), where
applicable:
Name:
(print or type)
Name:
(print or type)
Name:
(print or type)
TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY C~K:
Received by: ~ ~ '-~' % ~
Date:
SUGGESTED MOTION TO AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE CITY OF
ROANOKE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AND TO DENY THE REQUEST
FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF
WINDOWS AT 717 HIGHLAND AVENUE.
/'//t"Based upon the evidence (testimony and documents) presented to this Council at
oday's hearing, I move that the decision of the City of Roanoke Architectural Review Board
on April 13, 2004, be affirmed and that no Certificate of Appropriateness be issued for the
replacement of windows at 717 Highland Avenue, as set forth in the Petition for Appeal, on
the grounds that the proposed installation would not be compatible with the architectural
defining features of the building."
Or
SUGGESTED MOTION TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE CITY OF
ROANOKE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AND TO GRANT THE REQUEST
FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF
WINDOWS AT 717 HIGHLAND AVENUE.
"Based upon the evidence (testimony and documents) presented to this Council at
today's hearing, I move that the decision of the City of Roanoke Architectural Review Board
on April 13, 2004, be reversed and that a Certificate of Appropriateness be issued for the
replacement of windows at 717 Highland Avenue, as set forth in the Petition for Appeal, on
the ground that the proposed installation would be compatible with the architectural defining
features of the building."
H:~ARBWiOTIONS 717 HIGHLAND AVE DOC